Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Harvie Anderson): I beg to move,
That notwithstanding anything in Standing Order 231 (Presentation of petition for bill under section 1(4) of the Procedure Act) the Promoters of the British Railways Bill be permitted to proceed with their Petition.
At a late stage the promoters of this Bill realised that Clause 17 dealing with byelaws was one which for the sake of uniformity should apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. It was by then too late for the promoters to apply at the appropriate time to the Secretary of State for Scotland in accordance with Section 1(4) of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, since the petition for the Bill had already been deposited, and this constituted a failure to comply with Standing Order 231.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has seen the Parliamentary Agent concerned and satisfied himself that the rights of other parties are in no way prejudiced by the moving of this Motion. Nor has the Agent's failure in any way affected the proper consideration of the representations which the Act requires.
I therefore commend the Motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Food Prices

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the percentage increase in retail food prices in the six months ending June, 1970, and the latest period of six months respectively.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): The Food Index rose by 6·1 per cent. between 16th December, 1969, and 16th June, 1970. Between 18th May, 1971, and 16th November, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, the Food Index rose by 2·4 per cent. But it should be borne in mind that short-term trends are considerably affected by seasonal factors.

Mr. Farr: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that encouraging reply. Will he confirm that it shows that the rise in food prices has taken a marked turn for the better?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I pointed out in my reply, short-term trends in the Food Index are affected by seasonal factors, but it is encouraging that in the period since July, when the measures of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the C.B.I. initiative came into operation, the non-seasonal element in the Food Index, which accounts for about 83 per cent. of the whole, has risen by only 2·1 per cent.

Mr. Charles Morrison: In spite of the qualifications my right hon. Friend has made, will he also accept my congratulations on the figures? Do not they show, first, that my right hon. Friend's policies are working and, second, that we are coming to the end of the period in which we have been suffering from the adverse effects of the previous Administration?

Mr. Prior: The congratulations, such as they are, belong partly to the agricultural industry and partly to the Government for the joint measures they have taken.

Mr. Peart: Although the Question deals with the past, forecasting is very important, and the Grocer magazine has recently forecast a food price rise of "only" 7 per cent. this year. The magazine says "only", but 7 per cent. is quite large. Do the Government intend to introduce a value-added tax which will affect food? Are they considering that? When shall we have a decision on it? Have the recent price increases in the Community affected the forecasts in the Government's White Paper?

Mr. Prior: There is a later Question on the Order Paper about the Community and food prices. We have made it abundantly plain time and time again that food will be excluded or exempted from V.A.T. I would prefer not to forecast, but world prices have steadied down, and there are reasonable chances this year of greater stability.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the latest level of food prices.

Mr. Prior: There are some encouraging signs that the rate of increase in food prices is beginning to slow down. In particular the sub-group of the Food Index which covers manufactured foods rose by only 1·2 per cent. in the four months between July and November, 1971.

Mr. Davidson: Any decrease in the recent excessively high rate of increase in food prices is, of course, welcome, but can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of what increases in food prices he expects if we enter the European Community?

Mr. Prior: That is a completely different question from that on the Order Paper.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is still a substantial element of selective employment tax in food prices at wholesale and retail stages? Will he try to persuade our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abolish selective employment tax in his forthcoming Budget this April instead of the following April, which would have a marked effect on stabilising food prices?

Mr. Prior: We are gradually dismantling the taxes on food and other commodities which were put on by the Labour Party when it was in office. I think that in 18 months we have done pretty well.

Mr. Peart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all his former speeches show that he is a high-price man? He has always said so. That is on the record. What part has imported food played in the right hon. Gentleman's calculations? Can he give us any assessment of price increases?

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman has time and time again misquoted what I have said. I am not a high-price man, I am an end-price man, and there is a great deal of difference between the two. Imported non-seasonal foods for direct consumption have gone up in price by 5·1 per cent. since last July. This makes out the case for the policy that the more we produce at home the better we shall do, unlike the policy of the Labour Party.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has now been the percentage increase in food prices since 18th June, 1970.

Mr. Prior: Between 16th June, 1970 and 16th November, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, the Food Index rose by 13·1 per cent.

Mr. Skinner: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these figures represent a total disgrace to the Government, and to his Department in particular? Is he further aware that the 46 Derbyshire miners' wives who have been to Downing Street and Hobart House today, some of whom are in the Gallery—[Interruption]—could use, and have used, more colourful language than that? [Interruption.] I will say what I want to say.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is out of order in referring to the Gallery. Will he please ask a question.

Mr. Skinner: It is on the record so it does not matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call upon the hon. Member to finish his question.

Mr. Skinner: How can the right hon. Gentleman expect miner's wives to accept a 7½ per cent. increase in their husbands' wages when we have had a cost-of-living increase of the order which he announced?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman always uses extravagant language, and I do not think that he gets any further in the House by doing so. As I have pointed out, the Food Index is now coming under better control than for some time. Prospects are better than they have been, and I think that if we all accept a certain degree of reasonableness in our wage demands we may reach a situation in which the cost of food does not go up so sharply.

Mr. Peter Mills: In view of the increased production by British agriculture, would the Minister like to hazard a guess what the cost of food and the cost of living would be if we had a Socialist Government, bearing in mind the lack of confidence that agriculture had in the last Government?

Mr. Prior: We have only to look at figures for the last six months of the Labour Government to see which way things were going.

Mr. Bob Brown: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that a fair percentage of this catastrophic increase of 13·1 per cent. resulted from decimalisation? In view of that, can he give us an assurance that, come metrication, sausage will continue to be sold by the pound and not by the length?

Mr. Prior: We are some way off metrication.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what weighting is given to butter in the calculation of the Index of Retail Food Prices.

Mr. Prior: The 1971 weighting for butter was 2·8 per cent.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Does not my right hon. Friend's reply show the important effect on our prices of world prices over which we have no control?

Mr. Prior: Yes; this is one of the problems. Manufactured milk products as a whole account for over 5 per cent. of the Food Index and have accounted for

as much as one-fifth of the increase in the index since June. 1970. The world shortage of milk products is due to factors outside our control and it underlines the importance of a healthy and confident home dairy industry.

Mr. Strang: When the common agricultural policy becomes fully operative here, does the right hon. Gentleman expect butter to have a higher or lower weighting than caviar?

Mr. Prior: Lower.

European Economic Community

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further representations he has received regarding the future of the inshore fishing industry within an enlarged European Community; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: I met representatives of the Fisheries Organisation Society, which represents inshore fishing interests in England and Wales, on 21st December, when I answered questions about the position of the industry within the Community and expressed my confidence in its future.

Mr. Strang: But does the right hon. Gentleman recall that before the crucial vote on entry into the Common Market he gave the House a solemn pledge that he would not conclude a fisheries agreement without knowing precisely what terms were to be offered to the other applicants? How does he reconcile that pledge with what has happened? Is he aware that many of the fishermen's leaders, whose initial reaction was favourable, are now very concerned about what the Government have apparently brought back from Brussels?

Mr. Prior: I strongly disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said. It does the inshore industry no good at all for hon. Members to take that sort of attitude, which is totally unfair. Apart from that, we did know the terms which were offered to the other applicants, and it was on that basis that we accepted.

Mr. Brewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern in South-West Scotland about the fishing grounds off the Isle of Man and the Cumberland coast? Can he say anything


about what limits there will be around the Isle of Man?

Mr. Prior: I cannot say anything about limits around the Isle of Man. In isolated areas, where there may be special problems for certain species and so on, the problems will be far better looked at in terms of conservation. I am having a very careful study made of that point.

Mr. James Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up something which puzzled all of us who were in the Chamber during our debates on the E.E.C. fisheries policy, on Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill? Is he aware that in the other place the noble Lady, Baroness Tweedsmuir, made a categorical statement that we should have a veto at the end of the 10-years' transitional period, in answer to questions by my noble Friends, Lord Hoy and Lord Shinwell, whereas in this Chamber the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would not utter a word on that question and would not accept that there was any question of a veto being put in our hands at the end of that period?

Mr. Prior: That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The position with regard to the Luxembourg Agreement has always been perfectly well known—that the Community as a whole does not take action which it considers will affect the vital interests of any one of the nations concerned.

Mr. Luce: asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food whether, if Great Britain joins the Common Market, the Horticultural Improvement Scheme will remain in existence or be replaced by other forms of aid to the horticultural industry.

Mr. Prior: I see no reason why the Horticulture Improvement Scheme should be regarded as incompatible with present E.E.C. rules. The legislation authorising the Scheme expires in 1974 and the nature of assistance to the industry after that would be a matter for consideration whether we joined the E.E.C. or not.

Mr. Luce: Does my right hon. Friend accept that over the past 10 years or so the scheme has done a great deal to help build up a larger and more effective industry? Does not he accept that it would

be harmful to the industry to withdraw the scheme, except on the condition that it would be replaced by other equally effective aids and incentives to the industry?

Mr. Prior: The scheme continues until the end of 1974. It has put £80 million of extra capital into the industry, of which about £26 million has been supplied by the Government. The industry, particularly in my hon. Friend's constituency, has reached a high state of efficiency. We wish to maintain it at that level, but I do not want to commit myself at this stage beyond 1974.

Mr. Dalyell: When can market gardeners contemplating their investment plans expect to be told about the post-1974 arrangements?

Mr. Prior: We are in close consultation with the National Farmers Union about the E.E.C. arrangements, and I shall make a statement to the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the effect of the adoption of the European Economic Committee's fisheries policy in the British fishing industry.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in negotiations with the European Economic Community on fishery limits; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: Nothing has taken place in the negotiations to affect their satisfactory outcome for the British fishing industry as reported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 13th December last.—[Vol. 828, c. 51–53.]

Mr. Wall: In view of the valuable protection that is to be given to inshore fishermen, does my right hon. Friend agree that active policing of the new limit is needed? Does he also agree that the fact that Norway has now reached agreement with the E.E.C. will give protection to our distant water vessels in that it makes it far less likely that other nations will follow Iceland's bad example and try to extend their limit to 50 miles?

Mr. Prior: My right hon. and learned Friend will shortly be making a statement on protection, and I think that the outcome will be very satisfactory to the whole House. I confirm what my hon. Friend said on distant water protection. The agreement we have reached is a valuable safeguard. The formal assurance from the Community that the common fisheries policy forbids discrimination in form or in fact against fellow members' vessels outside 12 miles is vital to them.

Mr. Bruce Gardyne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the impression created by the Opposition, inshore fishermen in Scotland have accepted the agreement as entirely safeguarding the interests of the industry? Is he also aware that many of us were looking forward to an opportunity to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on this achievement in the debate on the fishing settlement that the Opposition promised to stage? Can my right hon. Friend tell us why the Opposition have decided not to hold this debate?

Mr. Prior: I think for precisely the reasons which my hon. Friend has given.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the Minister explain to the House that the achievement of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster means, despite all the previous assurances given, that after 1982 there will be no binding legal agreement at all save and in so far as it is up to the grace, favour and unanimity of the majority of the partners in the E.E.C.?

Mr. Prior: My right hon. and learned Friend has explained that on many occasions, and I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not grasped it.

Sir R. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the continuance of the slaughter policy in respect of foot-and-mouth disease and of the ban on the import of vaccinated animals after the end of the five-year period should Great Britain enter the European Economic Community.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what continuing effect the agreement on animal health with the Common Market will have on livestock production.

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is in relation to foot-and-mouth disease from 1978, should the United Kingdom join the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: The agreement preserves our exclusion of livestock vaccinated against foot-and-mouth disease and our quarantine precautions for imports of unvaccinated stock. The Community régime entitle us to take protective measures against the introduction of diseases like swine fever. Our slaughter policy for foot-and-mouth disease was never in question. The enlarged Community must decide the regime to apply after five years, but I am confident that we shall achieve satisfactory solutions then, as we have done now. Thus livestock producers should benefit from progress towards freer trade within the Community while exports to other markets should not be jeopardised.

Sir R. Turton: As the livestock export trade to many overseas countries depends on the continuance of our foot-and-mouth disease policy, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that after the end of the five-year period he will maintain existing restrictions against the import of animals from countries which have less rigorous animal health policies?

Mr. Prior: The problem here is one of vaccinated stock; those are the ones we wish to keep out. We have had a long and hard battle to obtain the agreement that we have obtained with the Community, and I am certain that, once we are a member, we shall be in a strong position to show the Community that our livestock health protection is far better than is theirs.

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend's reply is very satisfactory, but are there any spheres of animal health in which this country is lagging behind the Community and, if so, what action will be necessary by United Kingdom farmers?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. There are a few differences in interpretation on such matters as brucellosis and tuberculosis, but I do not think there are any spheres in which we are lagging behind. In fact, we have the best health precautions in the world, and we should stick to them.

Mr. Farr: Although I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says, does he not agree that this is an important matter on which we should not give way in any circumstances? Will he assure the House that, after 1974, whatever the E.E.C. may say, we will not permit the import of vaccinated animals?

Mr. Prior: We have five years, so there is no problem until 1978. By 1978 circumstances may have changed, and it would be unwise to go too far ahead and to give too categorical an assurance, but I see no reason why we should not continue this policy.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister assure the House that, in addition to control over the importation of live animals, the present restrictions on the importation of carcase meat from E.E.C. countries where there is endemic foot-and-mouth disease will continue after our entry?

Mr. Prior: The arrangements will remain the same for the E.E.C. countries as they are now. We allow dead meat to come in from them and we shall continue to have the same restrictions and the same provisions on access as we have at the moment.

Mr. Hooson: Has the Minister considered the difficulty of distinguishing between animals which have been vaccinated against foot-and-mouth disease and those which have not? Is he satisfied that the regulations of the E.E.C. countries make it possible for his inspectors to distinguish accurately, because that is the real problem?

Mr. Prior: We shall still maintain our quarantine system. We shall have no more difficulty in distinguishing then than we had before going into the Community. The situation remains exactly the same. It is not economic to import ordinary animals which have to go through a quarantine period. That is done only for those special animals required for breeding.

Mr. Moate: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now publish revised estimates of the increase in United Kingdom food prices if Great Britain should join the European Economic Community, taking account of higher Community prices and falling world cereal prices.

Mr. Prior: No, Sir.

Mr. Moate: My right hon. Friend was pointing a little earlier, and quite rightly, to a record of more stable prices in the last six months. At the same time the Community is proposing an 8 per cent. increase in food prices. Will this not produce a greater increase for the British housewife to bear, and will my right hon. Friend publish a further estimate if the Community's proposals are adopted?

Mr. Prior: It would not be practicable to publish revised estimates at short intervals to take account of world prices or increases in individual products; but once Community prices have been put up—if they are put up—I will consider what my hon. Friend said and we will publish a fresh estimate.

Mr. Peart: But the Minister must be aware that M. Mansholt has announced an 8 per cent. increase in prices. Will this not inevitably affect the estimates in the White Paper?

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman must know that this has not yet been confirmed. It would be ridiculous every week to keep publishing fresh estimates. Let us wait to see what happens and then publish the figures.

Potatoes

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to deal with the surplus of potatoes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): Most of the surplus is expected to be sold for stockfeed, but we are ready to consider any outlet which will achieve the aims of the support buying programme at an acceptable cost to the Exchequer.

Mr. Mills: But in view of the Potato Marketing Board's £18 million deficit last year, and an even higher deficit this year, is not it time that we made a concerted effort to reduce imports of new potatoes, canned potatoes and powdered potatoes? Why cannot the British housewife have British Smash rather than Canadian Smash?

Mr. Stodart: Processed imports to which my hon. Friend referred, other than


those coming from the Commonwealth, are subject to a tariff. An anti-dumping application is being considered.

Beer

Dr. Marshall: asked the Minisier of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about the prices of British beers.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: There were very few increases in the price of beer in 1971. There have been reports that some increases are in prospect, but my right hon. Friend has at present no formal notifications under the arrangements agreed with brewers of forthcoming price increases. At least one major brewer has publicly announced that it has no plans to raise prices in the near future.

Dr. Marshall: Will the Minister give an assurance that when applications for price increases which may be in the pipeline come before him he will resist them, in view of the inflationary effect which they might have on the cost of living of a large section of the population?

Mr. Stodart: No, Sir.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not better to take an independent view on this subject? Did not the National Board for Prices and Incomes consider this in depth and recommend in writing, after prolonged thought, that the margin of profit was insufficient? Is it not strange that hon. Gentlemen opposite interested in beer should impugn the conclusion of their own creature?

Mr. Stodart: Yes, Sir, my hon. Friend is entirely correct.

Mr. Harper: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the present strengths of British beers compare with those of 10 years ago.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The average gravity of all beer brewed in the United Kingdom has fallen by just over half of one degree in the course of the last 10 years.

Mr. Harper: Is the Minister aware that that reply will be received with scepticism by the people of this country? I have in my pocket a Christmas card from an old gentleman who says that the beer

today is rubbish and has lost a lot of weight since the First World War. In view of this, will the Minister consider introducing legislation providing for bottled beers to be labelled with the weight and, where beer is sold by pump, to give this information on the pump? If there were any deviation in the relative strength of beers, the vendors could then be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act.

Mr. Stodart: I am not entirely clear whether the hon. Gentleman's friend or the beer has lost weight. The average gravity of all beers in 1960 was 1037·25 degrees and in 1970 it was 1036·65 degrees. That is a loss of only 0·6 degrees in a figure of over 1,000. For reasons I have already given to the House, it would not be practicable to put on the bottle the specific gravity of the beer because this alters after the original bottling.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: Will the Parliamentary Secretary acknowledge that his figures for the national average exclude privately brewed beer not for sale, which is often considerably stronger?

Mr. Stodart: I can probably confirm that.

Manufactured Foods (Prices)

Mr. Kinsey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect he estimates the Confederation of British Industry initiative has had on the price of manufactured foods; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: It is not possible to measure the effect on retail prices of the C.B.I. initiative but it is encouraging to note that, in the four months to November, 1971, the sub-group of the retail price index which covers manufactured foods rose by only 1·2 per cent.

Mr. Kinsey: We have been encouraged by the figures given to us today by my right hon. Friend, but does he feel that if he had had further co-operation from the trade unions we might have seen an acceleration of the decrease in prices possibly extending over a longer period than the 12 months?

Mr. Prior: I have always believed that it is far better to have an increase in production and in real wealth than an


increase in money wealth, which is soon caught up by increased prices. I think the whole country—trade unions, employers and everyone else alike—has a part to play in that.

Mr. Golding: With one million unemployed, will the Minister tell us what incentive there is to increase production? Will he also say what he expects the increase in the price of food to be after the ending of the C.B.I. initiative?

Mr. Prior: The first part of the supplementary question is of no relevance to the original Question on the Order Paper. The second half of the supplementary question I answered earlier.

Planning Applications (Departmental Advice)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the estimated annual cost to his Department in 1969–70, and to dale, resulting from the giving of advice to local authority planning committees on the agricultural aspects of individual planning applications made by farmers.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: About £50,000 in 1969–70 and £54,000 in 1970–71.

Mr. Chapman: This must represent just a fraction of the expenditure of my right hon. Friend's Department. It is a matter of the economy versus the environment. Is my hon. Friend prepared to reconsider his intention to discontinue this service, as not to do so would, in the opinion of many people, be inimical to the good design and disposition of agricultural buildings in rural areas?

Mr. Stodart: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend would not be agreeable to reconsider this. It involves the Department in about 5,000 cases a year and the staff concerned could be doing more essential work. We see no reason why planning decisions involving agriculture should be more difficult than others, or why farmers and land owners should not accept the same responsibilities as others in justifying their development proposals.

Forests (Public Access)

Mr. David Clark: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the Forestry Commission's

forests are open to the general public; and what proportion this is in relation to its total holdings.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Unrestricted access on foot is normally allowed in about 230 of the Commission's 300 forests. At the remainder some degree of access is allowed in all but about a dozen cases.

Mr. Clark: While there is public appreciation of the great efforts being made by the Forestry Commission, could the Minister have discussions with it about the possibility of publicising this open access a little more?

Mr. Stodart: I will certainly do so if the hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary. I would merely say that in 1971 over 15 million people visited the forests by day, and as there are 177 picnic sites and 202 forest trails, it seems that there is a fair knowledge of the situation.

Services and Advice (Cost)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present total cost involving his Department in the provision of services and advice to the agricultural and horticultural industry; and if he will give an estimate of the annual cost for comparable services over the last eight years.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I have assumed that the hon. Member has in mind the cost of operating the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service and services concerned with the control of infestation. The estimated total cost in 1971–72 is £16·0 million. It is estimated that the cost of comparable services in 1963–64 was £7·8 million.
With permission, I will circulate the figures in respect of the intervening years in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Eadie: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether costs will increase or decrease if we enter the Common Market? How would he justify it if the cost increased?

Mr. Stodart: The hon. Gentleman must realise that my hon. Friend has embarked upon an exercise of reducing the advisory service and making it more efficient. As salaries account for 85 per cent. of the cost, I would have thought that the


chances of the cost going down were considerable.

Following is the information:

£ million


1964–65
8·7


1965–66
9·2


1966–67
9·8


1967–68
11·0


1968–69
12·1


1969–70
13·2


1970–71
15·3

Bread (Description)

Mr. Deakins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the legislation which governs the way in which bread is described at point-of-sale to the consumer.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The relevant legislation is the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, under which the Bread and Flour Regulations 1963 apply, while the Labelling of Food Regulations 1970, will also apply when they come fully into operation on 1st January, 1973.
The Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, is also relevant.

Mr. Deakins: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the housewife needs a standard definition of those descriptions of bread in the shops which purport to describe the contents so that she may know in future what she is buying when, for example, she buys a wholemeal loaf?

Mr. Stodart: The present regulations are being reviewed by the Foods Standards Committee and we are awaiting its advice before taking action.

Wood Pigeons

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will seek to encourage the destruction of the native British wild pigeon.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: It is for individual occupiers or local groups to protect crops that are exposed to damage by wood pigeons. I would recommend scaring devices for this purpose, because extensive research has established that no known techniques of destruction will lead to effective population control.

Miss Quennell: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he does not agree that one of the most efficient methods of securing

population control would be for him to put on his hat as Minister of Food and popularise the excellent culinary qualities of these pests?

Mr. Stodart: I am an enthusiastic consumer of pigeon. I am fond of all birds.

Store Cattle (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will seek by means of grants to promote the production of store cattle in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The production of stores in Northern Ireland is already encouraged by the existing measures of support given for the production of fat cattle for beef. The question of any changes will be a matter for consideration at the Annual Review.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the hon. Gentleman consider what more he can do to help, since there has been a progressive switch in the Republic of Ireland from store cattle to fat cattle, thereby defaulting on the quotas agreed under the Anglo-Eire Free Trade Agreement? Would he say what steps he is prepared to take in view of the Republic's failure to meet its obligations?

Mr. Stodart: More stores are coming to Great Britain this year and fewer are going to Northern Ireland. Special assistance is given in Northern Ireland for the production of stores and that assistance is not available in Great Britain. I will certainly see that this matter is kept under review.

Cereal Seed Dressings

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reconsider his advice to farmers in regard to the use of cereal seed dressed with aldrin, dieldrin or heptachlor, with a view to preventing or further limiting the use of such seed dressings, particularly on spring-sown grain.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: It has been reconsidered. Last month we reaffirmed the advice, to which all agricultural organisations subscribe, that these dressings should not be used on spring sown grain, nor on autumn sowings unless there is a real risk from wheat bulb fly.

Mr. Hardy: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that although the majority of farmers conduct themselves responsibly, there is a minority who continue to disregard the advice given by the Ministry? Does he not agree that it is time to consider introducing firm and positive arrangements to secure a reduction in the use of these insecticides, which are still being used, since people are still irresponsibly ignoring the advice given by the Department? Further, would he agree that, since the Government have seen an increase in food prices of 13 per cent. in the last few months, it is reasonable to expect that the increased cost which this suggestion would involve would be minute and would considerably help our society?

Mr. Stodart: I do not think this is a matter of cost. The Wilson Committee reviewed the use of organic chlorines in 1969 and found that the restrictions had lowered the number of incidents with birds, which are the chief sufferers, but the Committee also found that bulb fly was still too damaging to recommend a total withdrawal of dressings. The damage done by bulb fly in a bad year can amount to around £3 million.

Hedgerows

Mr. David James: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take further steps to reduce the grubbing up of hedgerows; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: I believe that farmers and landowners have shown increasing moderation and good sense in this matter. I welcome, and shall continue to encourage, a responsible attitude on the part of those concerned.

Mr. James: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Would he not agree that the face of England is being changed—by no means always for the better? Would it not be possible for his Department to take a slightly more active part in this process?

Mr. Prior: I would answer "yes" to both parts of my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Mackie: Would the Minister not agree that there is nothing worse than a misshapen field, with crooked hedges, in terms of cultivation, harvesting and

everything else, and that if the British public want crooked hedges they should pay for them?

Mr. Prior: There is a middle between ends, and we think that the balance is slightly wrong at present.

Mr. Marten: Has any study been made of the effect of the grubbing up of hedges on the bird population and their nesting and mating habits?

Mr. Prior: Not by my Department; but I have seen some disturbing figures on this subject and I feel that we should take this point into consideration.

Minimum Import Prices (Export Allowances and Restitutions)

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the permissibility within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of export allowances or restitutions as a setoff against the effect of minimum import prices; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: Export allowances would probably not give rise to serious difficulties under the G.A.T.T. Other factors in our international trading relations also need to be taken into account in judging whether to provide for export allowances. And we must assess whether, and the extent to which, our exports are in fact at risk because of the effects of minimum import prices. I am keeping the whole situation under review.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the notorious complexity of matters arising under G.A.T.T., would he consider publishing a White Paper setting out all these considerations in more detail, including reference to the position in the malting industry and its anxieties, about which I have recently been in correspondence with him on behalf of my constituents?

Mr. Prior: Malt is one of the commodities which is very much under review at present. I will consider my right hon. and learned Friend's suggestion about setting out the problem in a White Paper, but for my part I find some difficulty in agreeing that we should publish a White Paper.

Tractors (Fatal Accidents)

Mr. Concannon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fatal accidents have been caused each year from 1959 by overturning tractors; and how many of these accidents occurred with tractors fitted with the safety cab or frame.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: With permission, I will circulate the annual statistics in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Fatalities ranged between 26 and 47 a year and averaged 33. In the only instance involving a tractor fitted with an approved safety cab or frame, one of the two occupants stayed in the safety cab and survived.

Mr. Concannon: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to an article in the December issue of the Agricultural Worker by his own Chief Safety Inspector, Mr. J. C. Weekes, and, if so, has he taken that article seriously into account? Many of us would like to see the date brought forward so that it is made compulsory for all farmers to have safety cabs on tractors.

Mr. Stodart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very clued up on this safety aspect. In the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is at present going through the House, we are raising the penalties to deal with those who ignore its provisions. The date of operation was carefully considered by the previous Administration. For practical reasons this would appear to be the best compromise.

The following is the information:

Number of fatal accidents caused by overturning tractors in England and Wales each year since 1959:


1959
32


1960
26


1961
47


1962
39


1963
25


1964
31


1965
36


1966
39


1967
33


1968
32


1969
32


1970
26


1971 (provisional figure)
28

The fatal accident involving a tractor fitted with a safety cab occurred in 1968.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Ql. Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now give a date when Great Britain will sign the treaty of accession to the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): On 22nd January, Sir.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Will he confirm that it is normal diplomatic usage to publish the text of treaties after signature so that any amendment may be made before ratification? Therefore, is not the Motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition based upon a constitutional fallacy and designed, like the Treaty of Gastein, to paper over the cracks between himself and his enemies?

The Prime Minister: The procedure described by my hon. Friend is correct except in the case of a treaty which becomes operative immediately on signature. The procedure which the Government are following is that which I outlined to the House in full on 17th June last, which was then welcomed.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this question is to be debated in the House on Thursday, and will he give an undertaking that he will accept the decision of the House of Commons on the matter?

The Prime Minister: I commend to the hon. Gentleman, to his right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition and to their colleagues the words of Mr. Herbert Morrison, as he then was, on 10th March, 1949. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] The late Morrison was accepted as one of the great constitutional experts on procedure in the House of Commons. He then said:
We shall follow the customary British Parliamentary practice. The provisional signature of the document is the responsibility of the Government. As I have said before, there follows, however, the responsibility of the House of Commons to ratify or not to ratify, and that will give an appropriate opportunity for Debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1400.]

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is it not a fact that in that particular case it involved a treaty which, though important, was not


as important as this one? Does not the Prime Minister agree that on that occasion a White Paper was published setting out the text of the treaty to be signed two or three weeks later?

The Prime Minister: The Leader of the House at that time refused a debate on the matter and the reason the N.A.T.O. treaty was published was that no information had been given about it beforehand because it was a military treaty.

Mr. Foot: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has been no refusal of a debate on this question, since the matter is to be discussed in the House on Thursday, when he and his right hon. and hon. Friends will have a chance to put their case? All I am asking is, will he give an undertaking to the House and the country that he will accept the view of the House on this matter?

The Prime Minister: We as Her Majesty's Government will follow the British constitutional procedure of acting under the Royal Prerogative to sign the Treaty of Accession on Saturday, 22nd January.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not anticipate Thursday's debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL VISITS)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister what percentage of the time of his staff is spent in making arrangements for official visits.

The Prime Minister: A minute percentage, because most of the detailed arrangements for my visits abroad are made by British representatives overseas, and for visits within this country by the appropriate Departments at regional level.

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will not he consider placing in the Library a list of his future official visits and engagements? This in itself would produce an economy and it would have the added advantage of sparing the Opposition the necessity of putting down stupid Questions of the kind that we see on the Order Paper from time to time?

The Prime Minister: Certainly I will give consideration to my hon. Friend's suggestion. But I doubt whether even his advice will be able to overcome the lack of ingenuity among members of Her Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Lipton: Would it help the Prime Minister if we formed a nationwide federation of cities, towns and villages solemnly pledged never to invite the right hon. Gentleman to anything?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman always seeks to be helpful. However, he can speak only for his own constituency. I doubt whether he can speak for any other.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (CORRESPONDENCE)

Mr. Strang: asked the Prime Minister what proportion of the letters he receives is from Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave on my behalf to a Question from the hon. Member on 21st December.—[Vol. 828, c. 1305-6.]

Mr. Strang: Following the discussions which the Prime Minister had recently with the Chairman of the Scottish Council, does the right hon. Gentleman now accept that we have a tragic paradox in Scotland where we see, on the one hand, an unparalleled level of unemployment and, on the other, exciting possibilities in the context of Hunterston, North Sea oil, and Oceanspan? Do the Government accept the responsibility to bring forward some bold initiative in at least one of these developments?

The Prime Minister: I had nearly two hours' discussion with a large and representative membership of the Scottish Council. The hon. Gentleman will have seen from reports in the Scottish Press the Council's views of the discussion, which showed that the Government were already considering the two very big issues that it put before us. Of course, we are looking at them very carefully. The House is constantly told of the examination which is being made of the Hunterston scheme and of the exploitation of North Sea oil. But I hope that no one will under-estimate


what has accrued to Scotland already in the way of development arising out of the oil discoveries in the North Sea.

Mr. James Hamilton: Arising from the right hon. Gentleman's meeting with the Scottish Council, will there be any change in the Government's policy on investment grants? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency, within the space of an hour, a thousand people signed a message to the right hon. Gentleman protesting about unemployment? On the basis of that, is not he prepared to tell Scotland that he intends to make 1972 a good year, unlike the year which has just passed?

The Prime Minister: I gave an undertaking to the Scottish Council that not only the two major proposals that we discussed but all its detailed propositions would be considered by Government Departments, and I undertook to meet the Council again as soon as matters were resolved. I think that the Council itself announced this to the Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (TRADE UNION MEETINGS)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Prime Minister how many meetings he held during 1971 with representatives of trade unions at local or national level.

The Prime Minister: In addition to informal contacts, I held nine meetings last year with representatives of the trades union movement. I have also had a number of meetings with bodies whose membership includes trades unionists, such as the National Economic Development Council and Regional Economic Planning Councils in different parts of the country.

Mr. Onslow: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in these discussions, the reaction which he usually gets from the trade union side is more realistic, responsible and constructive than that which he normally gets from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite?

The Prime Minister: The members of trade unions who have been in discussion with me will agree that every point that they raised has been given full consideration. Mr. Victor Feather himself said

just before Christmas that many points put to the Government in the last six months have been met fully.

Mr. Orme: The Prime Minister has just referred to Mr. Victor Feather. Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it deplorable that he and his Government have taken no action about the national coal strike and that it has been left to Mr. Feather to take the first initiative to bring the two sides together? When will the Prime Minister intervene in this strike and use his offices to bring the two sides together and to make money available so that the miners can have a proper settlement?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in his facts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment himself invited the two sides to meet him at St. James's Square—

Mr. Orme: No. His officials.

The Prime Minister: I speak as a onetime Minister of Labour. The customary procedure is, first, for those involved in a dispute to meet officials in the Ministry. Then they move on, if that is what they require or if the circumstances are suitable, to meet the Secretary of State. The invitation was given and it was refused by the National Union of Mineworkers. But the whole matter is to be debated today.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (SPEECH)

Mr. Joel Barnett: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in London on 7th December on economic policy represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Barnett: The Secretary of State said categorically that it was the Government's policy to bring down the level of unemployment. In the past, the Prime Minister has always said that it was due to the high level of wages. May we now take it that this unreserved promise to reduce the level of unemployment means that the Government feel that they have solved the problem of wage inflation?

The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said,


which was what the Government said, was that the measures put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were designed to reduce unemployment. Surely it must be recognised that that is the purpose of the immense reflation that my right hon. Friend has undertaken.

Mr. Kaufman: Has the Prime Minister received any representations from the Secretary of State, whose constituency is very near to Greater Manchester where, during the past few days, more than 2,000 redundancies have been announced among workers in basic industry and where there is no hope of alternative employment because of the Secretary of State's ban on industrial development certificates for new industry? Will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State to remove that ban on I.D.C.s in Greater Manchester?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a very controversial matter. I do not think that he will have very much support from those of his right hon. and hon. Friends who come from development and special development areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADES UNION CONGRESS (GENERAL COUNCIL)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Prime Minister if he will continue to seek to hold talks with the Trades Union Congress General Council on economic and industrial policies.

The Prime Minister: I met the General Council of the T.U.C. on 1st December, and I should be glad to have further discussions with them. Economic and industrial policies are discussed by representatives of the Government and of both sides of industry at the monthly meetings of the National Economic Development Council.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Prime Minister aware that, following that meeting, when the T.U.C. General Council put certain proposals to him for economic expansion and the reduction of unemployment, it decided that, in future, there should be representations to him but no co-operation? Can the right hon. Gentleman say which single initiative or development in economic management since then entitles him to its co-operation?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman said that the T.U.C. decided that it would not give co-operation. I regret that, although it is prepared to admit that many of the policies that it has put forward have been pursued by the Government, the T.U.C. should still maintain that it is not prepared to co-operate. If the hon. Gentleman asks me about the last meeting, one specific item for which the T.U.C. asked was an annual review of pensions and social service benefits. That was announced afterwards by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Skinner: When the Prime Minister sees the General Council again, will he tell it why his Government felt it necessary to instruct the National Coal Board to offer only £2 a week to men with gross incomes of £18 a week, while the Government are prepared for him to receive an extra £9,000 a year in his wage packet

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has received an increase in his Parliamentary salary as well. Perhaps he will explain that—

Mr. Skinner: I have given it to the miners.

The Prime Minister: The average earnings of mineworkers are £28 a week, which is almost exactly the same as the average earnings in manufacturing industry, and the mineworkers would have received an increase as a result of the Coal Board's proposal.

Mr. Heffer: In addition to meeting the T.U.C. in future, will the Prime Minister, when he comes to Liverpool, meet the representatives of the trade union movement there for the purpose of discussing the very high level of unemployment in the area, which has now reached 52,000, and at the same time meet the shop stewards at Fisher-Bendix, who have occupied their factory because of the fear of its closure in an area with a very high level of unemployment and with no hope of other jobs? Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss all these issues with workers at grass roots level with a view to gaining some understanding of their strength of feeling about the growing unemployment in the country?

The Prime Minister: When I pay official visits to different parts of the country I discuss these matters with the


Economic Planning Councils on which both sides are represented. It seems to be generally accepted, both by employers and trade unions, that this is the best way of dealing with such matters. I have already had discussions in the North-West with the Economic Planning Council.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the gravamen of the Trades Union Congress case throughout the last 18 months has been the need for reflation? Is it not a fact that the aggregate value of all the reflationary measures taken by this Government in the last 18 months exceeds £3,000 million, which is vastly in excess of anything for which the T.U.C. asked?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that this has been the general thesis of the T.U.C. in discussions with us over the past year. The T.U.C. is prepared to acknowledge that the Government have undertaken massive reflation, but this does not alter the fact that in various ways it is pressing for still further reflation. When we last discussed this matter with the T.U.C., we pointed out how the measures which the Government have taken had been phased over the years so that, with the increase in private manufacturing investment, the economy could still remain on a steady course of expansion.

Mr. Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that, with the permission of the House, a Minister may, when answering one Question, take with it subsequent Questions linked to the subject matter of the original Question. However, in answering Question No. 8, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took with it Question No. 2 which had not been asked because the hon. Member due to ask it was not in the House. Is that in order?

Mr. Speaker: Nothing out of order has happened at all.

INDIA AND PAKISTAN

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
Since the House rose, the hostilities between India and Pakistan have ended. On 21st December the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution demanding the strict observance of this cease-fire and the withdrawal of armed forces as soon as practicable. We played a full part in the negotiations leading up to this resolution, and we voted for it.
A new pattern of relationships is now emerging. In Pakistan, President Bhutto has taken over the Government In congratulating him on this appointment my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear our wish for close and friendly relations. One of President Bhutto's first deeds was to release Sheikh Mujibur Rahman without conditions. This was a most statesmanlike act.
In the East, normal life is returning and the refugees are beginning to go back to their homes. There are reports that well over 1 million have already done so . Since Sheikh Mujib's return a new Government has been set up composed of those who were elected in the general election of December, 1970.
On his way home, Sheikh Mujib passed through London and we were glad to welcome him. He paid a private courtesy call on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and expressed his desire for close co-operation and friendship between his people and this country. As he was anxious to return to Dacca as quickly as possible, a Royal Air Force aircraft was put at his disposal.
Sheikh Mujib also expressed his wish to remain on good terms with Pakistan, but made it clear that there could be no question of a formal link. President Bhutto, for his part, has proposed further discussions between the East and the West.
The new Government in Dacca appears to be firmly established. The Indian Army is still in the East, but Sheikh Mujib has made it clear that this is by his will and that the soldiers will be with drawn when he deems it necessary.
I am keeping the question of recognition under close consideration and am in touch with a number of Commonwealth and other Governments. I hope to be able to make another statement on this question in the near future.
British lives and property have been affected by the war. As I informed the


House on 13th December, seven United Kingdom citizens were killed in a British ship in Karachi. Since the end of hostilities we have come to know that three United Kingdom citizens were killed in an attack on a Pakistan vessel in which they were serving. British property suffered some damage, including the tea estates in the East. But the British firms affected in both the East and the West are anxious to resume operations and assist in the task of rehabilitation.
Many problems remain. In the East the authorities are faced with an immense task of reconstruction. We shall want to play a full part in helping with these problems. We are trying, through the United Nations and other agencies, to establish the needs and priorities, and we discussed the question with Sheikh Mujib when he was in London. There still remains unspent about £1 million of our contribution to the United Nations for emergency relief. I am happy to announce that we have now decided to provide a further £1 million for relief in the area. In the West we have also told President Bhutto of our willingness to do what we can to help. The possibility of new aid is one of the questions which we shall be discussing with the President of the World Bank when he is in London this week.
I am sure that all Members will agree that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the events which led up to this tragic conflict, the need now is to help the parties concerned to work together to solve the many problems of the subcontinent.

Mr. Healey: First, I should like to join in welcoming, as the Foreign Secretary did, the wise statesmanship of President Bhutto in releasing Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and sharing in his wish for close and friendly relations with the new Government of Bangladesh. I think that the whole House will want to take this opportunity to wish the people of the new State a peaceful and prosperous future after the tragic ordeal through which they have passed in recent years.
I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary two questions. First, many of us will be disappointed that the Government do not feel in a position to give diplomatic recognition to the new Government of Bangladesh. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the real

reason is that he is seeking to arrange for the largest possible number of European and Commonwealth Governments to give diplomatic recognition at the same time and that this is well understood by Sheikh Mujibur himself?
Secondly, on the question of economic aid, the Foreign Secretary will recognise that the scale of aid required for the new State will dwarf in magnitude even that required to deal with the problem of the refugees in India not so long ago. Will he assure the House that he will meet what I am certain is the unanimous wish that Britain should take the lead in organising international support of the new State as we took the lead, under the right hon. Gentleman's initiative, in dealing with the earlier problem?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that I would use the word "arrange" diplomatic recognition by countries other than ourselves with ourselves. That would not be the right word. Obviously, recognition is a matter which we are taking very seriously. We want to accomplish this matter at the time and in the manner best calculated to establish harmonious relations. This is, therefore, a matter of timing.
On the matter of aid, reports coming from Bangladesh indicate that the food supply is very good this year. I think that transport causes the greatest anxiety, but we will certainly play our full part in relief work.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On the question of recognition, while recognising that wider considerations play an important part, may I ask my right hon. Friend to assure the House that he will bear in mind the great importance of early recognition for securing a resumption of trade in raw jute for Tayside which, as he knows, is so important for employment in that area?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, the trade has been successful in making short-term arrangements which ought to tide it over its troubles, particularly in Dundee. The prospect now looks a good deal better than it did a few weeks ago. I have that matter very much in mind.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that in two visits to Bangladesh since the cease-fire I formed


the impression that Britain was universally popular—indeed, was held in extremely high esteem—and that this is due not only to the fact that he has conducted the question of the Indo-Pakistan relationship with great skill, particularly in the Security Council during the last few weeks, but because the House of Commons itself has played a significant rôle in that a Motion was signed by over 200 Members, particularly from this side of the House, as long ago as last July, calling for the recognition of Bangladesh?
As to the future, will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that, as recognition is only a question of time—no doubt only a few days—it will be possible for technical discussions to take place immediately with a view to providing the flow of aid which is urgently required to get the economy on its feet again?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. He knows from his visits that there are many acts of reconciliation that have to be made before there are full harmonious relations between the two parts of what was Pakistan. But we shall hope for that. There will be no obstacle at all in the way of the resumption of technical talks about aid.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although obviously this extra £1 million which we are giving will be very important—and let us hope that it will be properly used—according to my information there is a desperate need for literally double figures of millions of blankets, and that so far only under 1 million have been supplied? Would my right hon. Friend say what can be done to see whether we can either provide new blankets or call on the public to volunteer to let these people have some of their own?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. I shall inquire into this need at once.

Sir G. de Freitas: If the Government cannot appoint a High Commissioner now because the State of Bangladesh is not recognised, will they consider appointing a head of commission or special commissioner to make it easier for the transitionary period to a High Commission after full recognition of this Commonwealth country?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Our representative in Dacca, who was Deputy High Commissioner for Pakistan, is in the closest touch with all the authorities in Bangladesh. I do not think that the step that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting would be necessary.

Mr. David Steel: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is general support for his attitude and actions in this matter and a general wish that we should proceed to recognition as soon as diplomatic niceties allow? In addition to the cash aid that we are giving, could we not perhaps give particular attention to the need for land and sea vehicles to help solve the transport problem? Could we help in that particular matter?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have offered help in this particular way. How many additional boats will be wanted is again a matter which we can look into. Certainly I have this in mind.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Following my hon. Friend's question about jute, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that much of the leather industry here is also dependent on skins coming from Bangladesh? I hope that arrangements can be made before these are diverted to other countries.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. Successful arrangements about jute have been made by the trade in the last week, and many thousands of bales are now available, which will help in the short term. We have this question of the jute industry very much in mind.

Mr. Rose: While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask whether he recognises that there are many advantages to be derived from early recognition of Bangladesh? Would he say what status he accords to the present Bangladesh mission in London? Would he undertake to the House that the figures he has given with regard to aid are not an ultimate commitment and that whatever aid is necessary for the rehabilitation of refugees and the development of Bangladesh he will look upon favourably and with some generosity? Would he also take steps to help seek harmony between the two parts of former Pakistan in bringing those two parts more firmly together, not organically but in friendship?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: On the question of aid, of course, the £2 million now available is not the end of the story. But we did not want the United Nations to be short of cash for anything that might have to be done quickly. I hope that other nations will share in this a little more than they did in the rehabilitation of East Pakistan. The question of the diplomatic operations of Bangladesh in London is a matter I am discussing with the Bangladesh authorities.

Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has just referred to the need for other nations to provide aid to Bangladesh. When the President of the World Bank is in London this week, will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with him the possible formation of a consortium of aid donors, under the possible chairmanship of a world bank chairman, similar to the Aid India consortium to organise an international effort on the scale required?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there will be problems not only in Bangladesh but in West Pakistan with the renewal of aid, and also in India. This matter must be considered all in one picture. Therefore, I will talk to the Chairman of the World Bank on these lines.

CORNWALL AND DEVON COASTS (CHEMICALS)

Mr. Pardoe: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the crisis now facing the whole of the South-West of England.
Our coasts have been further fouled as a result of the sinking of the Spanish freighter "Germania" four weeks ago off the Channel Islands, with the arrival of its highly dangerous cargo on Cornish and Devon beaches. A new turn of events has taken place since yesterday on this extremely important matter, namely, that we have for the first time the manifest of the cargo on this ship. It is clear as a result of the reports of this cargo and its contents that the South-West, and particularly Cornwall, is facing a far more dangerous crisis than was caused by the

"Torrey Canyon", because over 1,000 drums of chemicals went down with the ship. Only about 100 drums have so far arrived on our beaches and been recovered. There are 374 drums of highly toxic T.D.I., and 286 drums of sodium cyanide. This is why I say that it is the most important and dangerous pollution disaster to have faced Cornwall or, indeed, this country this century.
We had no statement yesterday, much to my surprise. We had no statement again today, although I have had a telephone conversation with the Secretary of State for the Environment, who was very courteous. But that was hardly a substitute. We have not been told by the Government either outside or inside the House, how serious they believe this crisis to be. We have not been told how dangerous these chemicals are, either when concentrated or when mixed with sea water. We have not been told by the Government what the population in the areas affected should do. We have not been told what advice the Government are giving or how widespread the crisis is, nor have we been told anything about whether we can continue to eat fish caught from these waters.
None of these questions has been answered. Unless we have a far-reaching debate in the very near future, none of them will be answered to the satisfaction of those in the far South-West. Perhaps the Government do not have many of the answers to these questions, but at least the House ought to be told that.
You have said, Mr. Speaker, on recent occasions in answer to applications under Standing Order No. 9 that you simply have to decide whether the matter ought to take priority over the business of the House. Mr. Speaker, Cornwall has now, for the second time, borne the brunt of a major pollution disaster at sea. It is important not only to Cornwall and Devon, however, because there are very few beaches in constituencies represented by hon. Members of the House that are entirely safe from this latest disaster. If the wrong actions are taken now this cargo may be washed up gradually year by year on beaches around a wide section of British coasts. If the House refuses to debate this matter and give it the priority over other business of the House, Cornwall will have a right to feel affronted and deeply angered.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) for having given me notice of his intention to raise this matter. He has very clearly stated it. He has already stated the attitude which I take up to these applications. Without doubt this is a serious matter. I simply have to decide whether it should be debated under Standing Order No. 9 in the immediate future. I regret that I cannot accept the application.

BILL PRESENTED

GAS

Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter

Thomas, Mr. R. Graham Page, Sir John Eden, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, and Mr. Nicholas Ridley, presented a Bill to make fresh provision with respect to the gas industry in Great Britain and related matters, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

ROAD TRAFFIC (FOREIGN VEHICLES) BILL [Lords]

Ordered,—
That the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

HOME OWNERSHIP

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend to the tenants of dwellings owned by local authorities and other housing bodies the right to acquire the ownership or leasehold of their homes.
Public ownership of housing, extended as it has been over the years under both parties, with additional controls on building and other housing regulations, in the opinion of many people and many experts, has accentuated the housing shortage. Many of these regulations were designed to cure the housing shortage, but some of us believe that they have only made matters worse. The object of this Bill is to "denationalise" family homes. However much one believes in nationalisation as a principle, surely the family home should be exempt.
This is nationalisation in a most discriminatory form—against only the lower wage earners and the workers of this country, because the better-off can and do own their own homes. Few people, and fewer politicians, ever declare themselves opposed to the principle of a property-owning democracy. My own party has made this a very important part of its policy. Yet we have all allowed public authorities to deny nearly half Britain's families the right to buy their homes.
These are the homes provided by the taxpayers and ratepayers by means of subsidy. It is true that some local authorities in control of council houses permit tenants to buy their homes, but they are not in the main enthusiastic about it and many local authorities do not allow tenants to do so. There are now millions of families in this category, and in future they may never be allowed to buy their own homes. This will affect families from one generation to the next.
This situation is clearly a class discrimination if ever there was one. It applies only to the lower income groups. Nearly all the higher income groups own their own homes. The tenant families and the working classes under both parties have had to accept constantly rising rents, and the Housing Finance Bill uses the Labour Party's fair rent principle to in-

crease the rents only partly to cover the cost to the tenant. So unless these tenants have the right freely to buy their own homes, they can never peg the cost of their home against inflation. The best way for a householder to insure himself against rising rents is to buy his home: it is better than a rise in wages.
Also to be considered is the pride of ownership in one's own home, the incentives that there are to improve one's property and enhance its value. The Government's improvement grants are freely available and are used mostly by home owners. It is easy for most of us to recognise property which is owner-occupied as we go about the country. In Birmingham, in my own constituency in particular, urban deterioration is a serious problem, but was made less acute by home ownership. It is or should be an essential part of our policy to create home ownership if we are to defeat urban deterioration.
Another consideration is the mobility of labour. In our large cities, many unemployed are unable even to consider taking a job at the other side of the town, for the sole reason that they are municipal tenants and do not find it easy to move home. Changing a tenancy is far too slow and uncertain. If a job is offered to an unemployed man at the other side of a city as large as Birmingham, he has to think twice about accepting. I believe that many of our unemployed would not be restricted in their choice of job if they could sell their home and buy another.
I have carried out some research on this matter and the best estimate that I can make is that about 10 per cent. of the people in the home owner belt are mobile and do change their homes in any one year, whereas only about 2 per cent. of the people in council-owned properties move.
This leads one to assume that the security of tenure of having a municipal house is the main incentive, rather than employment. A man can easily get social security and unemployment pay, but he cannot easily get another house. This Bill is based on the Leasehold Reform Act, which was supported by both parties, to ensure specifically the right for people to own their own homes. The Bill carries this principle one stage further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) initiated a debate just before the recess which was very valuable and saves me having to mention many of the facts of the situation which we should be considering and which I hope will be considered in debate.
Why should city councillors prevent home ownership? I am told that, in Bristol, an alderman voted against the city council allowing tenants to buy their homes, and after that vote went to the local authority and bought his own municipal house, before the city council could change the rules—

Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order. This cannot be in order, surely, in initiating a Ten-Minute Rule Bill, which has overstayed its time.

Mr. Speaker: These are matters for me.

Mr. Gurden: All I ask today is the right to debate this matter in the House. Any criticisms of the Bill—of its principle or any matters relating to it—can be debated at a later stage to the benefit of millions of people in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gurden, Mr. Kinsey, Mr. Woodnutt, and Mr. Ralph Howell.

HOME OWNERSHIP

Bill to extend to the tenants of dwellings owned by local authorities and other housing bodies the right to acquire the ownership or leasehold of their homes, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

COAL INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)

Mr. Speaker: More than 30 hon. Members have indicated to me their wish to speak in this debate. I hope that those who catch my eye will bear this fact in mind. Mr. Davies.

4.1 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): The issue of a national coal strike, which we are debating today, provokes inevitably depths of feeling and concern that go even beyond the serious industrial facts that are involved.
There are many reasons for this—the character of the industry, with its ruggedness and dangers; the men who work in it and who rightly evoke our sympathy and admiration; the historical place that the industry holds in the whole evolution of British industry; the special links it has with this House; the numbers of people involved and their unity and union membership; the remarkable history of the National Union of Mineworkers; and the impact that the industry has on every section of the community, geographically, industrially, socially and domestically.
This catalogue by no means exhausts the many reasons why the events that have recently occurred elicit a response throughout the country which is perhaps more profound and emotional than the plain industrial issues involved. But even on the level of the plain industrial issues, so much is at stake that we must try to see clearly and understand how those problems have arisen and what are the wider national issues that surround them, how they are likely to affect the life of the country and, perhaps most important of all, what their consequences may be for the industry and those who work in it.
Perhaps it is right to consider first that last question—the consequences for the industry itself. It is necessary to look at the recent history of the industry to do this—at its prospects and problems and how it is surmounting them and at its future outlook.
By any standards, the radical transformation which the industry has undergone in the last decade is a matter for


admiration and approval. It has squared up to the realities of its competitive position and has acknowledged the need to modernise and streamline itself. It has done this with there having been a remarkable degree of understanding between management and unions. It has set about this process by making a dramatic reduction in manpower and a vast modernisation effort in plant to reduce the advantage that other newer primary fuels, such as oil and natural gas and even the nuclear generation of electricity, enjoyed.
Successive Governments have supported this transformation by writing off accumulated losses and by affording some degree of protection through the fuel duty and other measures, recognising both the social factors involved and the security ones in comparing an indigenous source of fuel with the need to import.
The combination of these efforts gave rise to a sustained improvement in productivity throughout the 'sixties, though by 1969, to the dismay of those who wished to see the industry endure and prosper, that effort seemed to be running out of steam, and the last two years regretfully have seen the rate of improvement dwindle and disappear.
After the great write off of accumulated losses in 1965 of £415 million the industry has endured further losses to the tune of £34 million, but the prospects were brighter and, with competitive fuels increasing in cost, there was hope of turning the corner into profitability.
Despite the damaging impact of unofficial action this year, 1970–71 saw a marginal profit of £½ million and hopes were high that 1971–72 would carry that ahead into continuing surplus. Those hopes are now dashed with the expectation that the present strike will be pushing the Board into deficit at the rate of £10 million a week over and above the £20 million already arising from the last two months' overtime ban.
This damaging turnround in the Board's prospects arises at a time when some of the surrounding factors are tending to reduce the critical importance of coal production as an element of security in our national fuel picture. Imported oil, it is true, has been getting substantially more expensive and that tendency may well continue, but large reserves of oil have been found round our own shores

and the outlook for these secure sources of highly competitive fuel is suddenly looking rather bright.
Gas, too, has been found in substantial quantities and coal-gas is becoming rapidly a thing of the past. Nuclear power, after the inevitable uncertainties of the early days of a revolutionary new process, will now be settling down to sustained and ever more economic power generation. [Interruption.] It will. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but they had to be concerned with this issue when they were in office. They therefore know that I am right. This process is settling down to a sustained improvement in performance.

Mr. Alex Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman sought to praise the miners, but now he is seeking to threaten them.

Mr. Davies: No, I am not.

Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman is. Can he produce evidence to show that there is an abundance of cheap oil or that nuclear power is not escalating in price, apart from being obsessed with technical difficulties?

Mr. Davies: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not in any way threatening the miners. I am simply seeking to establish the realities facing the industry. As for access to oil supplies, the hon. Gentleman will, bearing in mind the area from which he comes, not have failed to note the intention expressed by the B.P. Company not long ago relating to a very large resource of oil in the North Sea. That will be exploited as from now on at a high cost, and this will be available—[Interruption.]—at a very reasonable price.
On the issue of nuclear generation, has not the hon. Gentleman realised that even at present Magnox reactors are able to produce electricity at a price well within supplies available from traditional fuels?

Mr. Eadie: What about A.G.R.?

Mr. Davies: I am referring to the Magnox reactor. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that it is producing economically. In these circumstances the future of coal depends on its ability to regain its productivity record of the 'sixties and, above all, not to allow self-inflicted wounds to undermine its prospects for the


future. It is for this reason that a crippling strike arising at this juncture is a cause of concern not just for the immediate difficulties and hardships it may occasion but for the irremediable damage it may do to all that has been so patiently and constructively achieved by a decade of harmony and collaboration.
To the material losses there is also a risk of adding a legacy of bitterness from the strike itself—and this will increase the longer the strike endures—which will prove to be an obstacle to the resumption of the collaboration which is so essential if a renewal of productivity gain is to be achieved in the future, with all its immense importance for the competitiveness and resilience of the industry. Already we have seen signs of those actions which engender bitterness and leave an after-taste of sourness and distrust.
When, for instance, I read of refusals to comply with the union's own advice on the maintenance of safety measures, I am deeply distressed, not only by the immediate incident, but by its deeper and more enduring effect on the resumption of the joint endeavours that are so much needed for the future.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On this question of safety—

Mr. Davies: In speaking of safety measures I would wish to acknowledge the remarkable and untiring efforts of management, staff and officials in keeping the pits in working order at the present time. They are putting in long hours in an ardous and difficult task, and the capacity of the industry to get back again into production will in due course owe a great debt of gratitude to them.

Mr. Skinner: There has been a lot of clap-trap about so-called safety measures. In my opinion what the Board is really concerned about—and perhaps the Minister will be able to say whether this is true—is that there is £100 million worth of equipment down the pits belonging to the Board and private interests. The difference between 1926 and now is that instead of the equipment down the pits belonging to the men, it belongs to some other people. It is not really a question of safety. What the Board is really asking miners to do is to move the chocks

along. It has nothing to do with safety. The object is to safeguard the money of private interests.

Mr. Speaker: Frequently there are complaints about the length of Front Bench speeches. It is interventions which frequently make them longer.

Mr. Davies: The plant to which the hon. Gentleman has referred in the pits is at the basis of the future of the industry, and the work that is involved in safeguarding it is important not just from the point of not suffering an unreasonable degree of waste, but also from the point of ensuring that there is continuing activity within the pits for the men to return to.
With so much at stake, it is necessary to realise fully the events which have brought the industry to this unhappy pass. The union's claim was presented in mid-September, and called for very large increases in pay ranging up to £9 a week which, if accorded, would have added about one-third to the Board's wages bill, and would have added about 15 per cent. to existing price levels. Negotiations went on into mid-October, with the board advancing its offers from £1·60 a week for all, to £1·80 a week for the lowest paid surface workers, and £1·75 for other workers. That was rejected by the union which, on 21st October, withdrew from all consultative machinery, called for an overtime ban from 1st November, and in accordance with its rules instituted a ballot of its members with a view to calling a national strike.
That ballot commenced a month later, and on 2nd December the result was announced which gave the executive discretion to call a national strike by a vote of 58·8 per cent. in favour, a proportion which, in parenthesis, I should point out would not have been sufficient before July of last year to give such discretion—[Interruption.] In the intervening period a resolution was passed to reduce the requisite number in favour from 65 per cent. to 55 per cent.
Throughout the remainder of December and early January further efforts were made by the Board to find a formula acceptable to the union, but it failed. Almost on the very eve of the strike the Chairman of the National Coal Board made a last-minute attempt to


reach a settlement and met the full executive of the N.U.M. at its headquarters. At that meeting every effort was made to avert the strike which was clearly in nobody's interest. The Board advanced its offer still further to £2 a week for the lower paid and £1·90 for the others, together with an additional 5 days holidays, and including a special productivity arrangement.
It should be noted that the last offer was never the subject of a ballot, and it is at least open to question whether, with the narrow majority giving the executive discretion to call a strike at the lower level, there would still have been the requisite majority not merely to give discretion but actually to implement a strike at the higher. [HON. MEMBERS:" Rubbish."] I say that it is at least open to question.
In the face of the rejection of its latest offer and the firm intention of the union's executive to proceed with the strike, as notified, on 9th January the Board withdrew its offer on the grounds that the financial situation of the Board must inevitably be damaged by the strike, that it could not expect therefore to be in a position to sustain the latest offer from such a worsened position, and that when the parties resumed their contact—as they inevitably must—the situation would have to be approached in the new conditions which would then be prevailing.
The Board estimated that its latest offer amounted to slightly less than 8 per cent. of its wages bill, and that was equivalent to pre-empting a 2 cwt.—almost 5 per cent.—increase in productivity. Before the final rupture came the Board on 5th January proposed to submit the dispute to the National Reference Tribunal, but the N.U.M. would not agree. A similar plea by the Board last week was again rejected. However, I understand that earlier today the T.U.C. approached both sides in an endeavour to bring them together and that the N.C.B. and the N.U.M. have now agreed to take part in a meeting tomorrow. I hope that that initiative will lead to useful results. There was a murmur, why did we not do something? I recall to hon. Gentlemen opposite that my right hon. Friend said earlier at Question Time that an endeavour was made but it was refused by the N.U.M.

A few facts are worth establishing about pay levels in the industry. First, the nearly 8 per cent. final offer of the Board, on top of last year's 12 per cent. gives an overall increase materially in excess of the movement of living costs over the period involved. Second, the cost of the final offer would have been about £31 million, and that has to be set against an accumulated deficit of £34 million, a break-even in 1970–71, and a hoped-for surplus in 1971–72 already undermined by the overtime ban.
Within the increase the lowest paid workers would have had an 11 per cent. advance to add to the 20 per cent. they received in November 1970. Most face workers would have been on £31·90 had the final offer been accepted, thus exceeding substantially the parity of £30 already attained under the National Power Loading agreement, and involving for about 69,000 workers increases of up to £2.77½ per week, to which the £1.90 of the offer would have been added. The T.U.C.'s target of a £20 minimum wage would have been attained for the industry, lifting mineworkers in this respect from sixteenth to sixth place in the league table of minimum rates and placing them on the same level as dockers.
I have seen and heard references in the Press and elsewhere to cases of individuals taking home as little as £13. The Board has circulated to Members information which shows how misleading those reports are. When cases have been investigated it has often been found that deductions for rent and National Savings were comprised within the figures to arrive at the figure for take-home pay.[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is absolutely exact. I need not repeat what the House will already have read, but it is worth stressing that the take-home pay of an adult married face worker with no children would have been just under £24 had this offer been accepted.

Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that there are miners with families qualifying for the Family Income Supplement?

Mr. Davies: I am not able to deny it, but that is because I do not have those facts before me. I will readily and willingly look into that question.
The Board has worked out—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite ask for facts. I am seeking simply to state the facts. The Board has worked out that average adult earnings for the week ending 9th October, 1971, were in excess of £30, including allowances in kind amounting to some £2.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The right hon. Gentleman has given figures for October. Will he now give figures for a period in November or December when the overtime ban was operating? The wages in the period he has quoted resulted from miners working many hours of overtime.

Mr. Davies: That is all entirely irrelevant to the question of the real pay in the industry. The industry is working to a certain pattern of overtime the suppression of which has caused the industry grievous damage, as I have already said. The fact is that the average earnings in October, when normal working was being pursued, was at this substantial level.
It has been suggested that the Government should step in and by some means compensate the Board to enable it to make a higher settlement than its own financial position and prospects make possible. However, against the facts I have mentioned about the offer and the level of pay in the industry, such a step would have been manifestly irresponsible. The final offer compares favourably with many recent settlements in both public and private sectors, and to subsidise an increase in it would be flying in the face of all the efforts that the Government are making to contain inflation and reduce the damaging rise in prices. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are never hesitant about demanding the containment of prices, yet they are never prepared to meet the requirements for doing so. The efforts that the Government are making have had, and are continuing to have, a considerable measure of success.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that, if the miners' wage demand were conceded in full, it would lead to a very large increase in the retail price of coal, all of which would render the product entirely uncompetitive and

cause a large part of the existing market for coal to disappear?

Mr. Davies: I have said that the effect of acceding to the total proposal of the National Union of Mineworkers would have been to increase coal prices by 15 per cent. which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, would have put coal rightly out of the field of competition.
So here we are witnessing a damaging strike liable to cause great inconvenience, and even hardship, to the community and great damage to the industry itself.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: No, I will not.

Mr. Loughlin: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman give way to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the Secretary of State give way now?

Mr. Davies: No, I am not giving way.

Mr. Loughlin: As the right hon. Gentleman gave way to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, he should give way to someone on this side.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that there is always a great deal of complaint about the length of Front Bench speeches. Continual interventions simply protract Front Bench speeches. I want to be able to call a large number of Opposition Members who wish to speak. I ask the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) not to protract the proceedings.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am very sorry that you should think that I am protracting the debate, or at any rate the right hon. Gentleman's speech. However, if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give way to a very favourable intervention from one of his hon. Friends it is abject cowardice on the part of the right hon. Gentleman if he will not give way to


what may be a not so favourable intervention.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is on a rather bad and unfair point, because the Secretary of State had already given way to two very hostile interventions.

Mr. Davies: I hate to disappoint the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) but, as you say, Mr. Speaker, I have given way on a number of occasions and not by any means always to amicable interventions either.
So here we are witnessing a damaging strike liable to cause great inconvenience, and even hardship, to the community and great damage to the industry itself, for causes which, on the statement of facts I have listed, do not seem to justify the action which has been taken. At present the impact on the community as a whole is slight and patchy. Stocks are reasonably high throughout the country, but there are bound to be difficulties for some firms and in some places. It would be some weeks before there begins to be real difficulty. The steel industry is likely to be among the first to be hit, with all the damaging effect that that will have on production, exports and employment.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry took immediate action to enjoin economy on distributors and fuel users alike the day after the strike started. In case further measures had to be taken, the Government are keeping the situation continually under review.
I earnestly hope, however, that matters will not deteriorate in such a way as to make further action necessary. The very future of the industry and of the employment it provides is at stake. It would be tragic if, with the prospect of a better future for coal in view, irreparable damage were now done, with all the unhappy consequences—industrial, personal and social—that would inescapably ensue.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: This is a grim hour for the mining community and, by the same token, for the people of the country, as I shall seek to show.
It is some time since I have concentrated my mind on the affairs of the miners. Before the last Government ended I had the great privilege of being in

charge of the National Coal Board and of mining affairs.
In the past my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has been in charge of these matters for the Opposition. I wish that at this hour of crisis I could reproduce one fraction of the zeal and passion of my hon. Friend and the concern he showed for the miners in the period during which he had charge of this portfolio for the Opposition. In a sense, he has swapped his portfolio with me and he is now the Opposition's leading spokesman on Europe. Whatever differences of view I may have with my hon. Friend on any other subjects, I certainly hope to convey to the House the concern which throughout the period of our opposition has been expressed by my hon. Friend on behalf of our party for the miners of this country.
It may be relevant to refer to my own experience with the miners. I have known them intimately over a period of years as a lawyer, but I met them more particularly in connection with my work at the Ministry of Technology. It might be thought from much that has been said that the miners are men who make exorbitant demands upon the community, that they are less socially responsible and socially conscious than the rest of the community. That has not been my experience. I do not want to sentimentalise, but my experience is that these men, who have been mistreated so badly by the people of this country and the arrangements of this country over so long a period, are among the most loyal to their craft and to their country that we possess.
I met not exorbitance of demand but moderation, decency and reason. I met men at the modesty and reasonableness of whose demands I marvelled. I marvelled at their co-operation, at their loyalty to the grim taskmaster which their industry is, and the love and affection they have for that work and that industry and their loyalty to their comrades in the industry, a matter with which I will deal later.
So the first question I must ask is, why have we a strike on our hands? For nearly half a century there has been no such general strike of the miners. Why today, in our more affluent society, have the miners been brought to a pitch of feeling where there is a general strike backed emotionally, whatever the ballot


says, by every single man at the pits, in Scotland, Wales, Cumberland and the like?

Mr. Skinner: And their wives.

Mr. Lever: I do not approach the question in a censorious or arrogant spirit. In no country has anyone found a golden key to unlock the doors of the problem of determining wages and wage differentials between one trade and another. Therefore, no one has the right to speak with arrogance and overconfidence about particular settlements or ethical principles in determining either the total of money wage rates or the relative wages between one trade and another. Therefore, I certainly do not approach the question with a desire to make destructive criticism of the Government.
But I must say at the outset that, having followed very closely what has taken place, I am amazed that the Minister should make the speech he did. He failed even for a moment to direct his mind to the central questions that should be troubling it and his conscience: why have we this strike on our hands; why have nearly 300,000 of the most patient, hardworking, hazard-risking men in our industrial society reached a point where they are prepared to jeopardise their future prospects of employment and submit themselves to immediate poverty and conflict to establish what they believe to be their rights? That question does not even appear to have crossed the mind of the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues who have been handling the matter.
Why is it that patient, hardworking men of the calibre of the miners, to whom the right hon. Gentleman paid such generous tribute in opening, when he talked of their years of co-operation, of reasonableness, of loyalty to their craft, are now feeling a sense of outrage? The right hon. Gentleman has not even begun to attempt to understand this. Why is it that the men are prepared only with difficulty to obey their union's order to attend to safety in the pits because of the strike which has been brought about?

Mr. F. A. Burden: Everyone in the country regrets that the miners were 16th in the wages league

table, but we are surprised that Labour hon. Members, who are now exclaiming so bitterly that nothing has been done by the present Government, when the miners are being brought up at least to sixth place, should have been so silent during their period of office, never saying a word about the matter then.

Mr. Lever: I like to be generous about interventions. However, they are no substitute for catching the eye of the Chair and treating the House to oratory, valuable or less valuable according to judgment.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Burden: Answer.

Mr. Lever: I will deal with all these questions in my own order if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself.
I now want to ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Employment, who is to reply, why they think that the strike has been brought about. Has there been a sudden sea change in the character and quality of our mining population which, after nearly half a century including the past 25 years of patient co-operation, leads them to feel outraged at their situation and to feel that they have no alternative but to take strike action to secure some justice? The fact that we have no rules which can tell us exactly how we should seek to determine wages in any particular situation does not entitle us to retreat into rigidity and inflexibility.
On the contrary, as we seek to evolve better ways of dealing with our problem of wages and the like, we must show the maximum respect to the well-tried principles of fair play, decency and candour while we seek in one way and another to improve the general bargaining situation and its consequences for our country. I shall not enter into controversy about what direction that will take. In the meantime, rigidity, inflexibility, coldness, rules of thumb evolved in the secrecy of Government Departments, are not the way in which to handle work-people with a grievance. Real and serious efforts to meet them man to man to examine their grievances and find out what may reasonably be done to deal with them are the order of the day.
I shall try in the time at my disposal to deal with the major policy questions that were involved and seek to show that on every count the Government failed to apply ordinary candour, common sense and fair play in their treatment of the miners. I was rather shocked by the right hon. Gentleman. More than once in his speech he sought to trot out the weary argument about a 15 per cent. increase in coal prices if the miners' demands had been granted in full. I shall not speak in detail about what should be granted, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, in spite of the synthetic indignation he mustered about the 15 per cent. increase, that no union entering into a bargaining situation states its original demand as being equivalent to what it finally accepts.
What we are discussing is not whether the full demands of the miners should have been met but whether the Government and the Coal Board have made reasonable attempts to meet the miners' legitimate grievances, whether the offer they have made is adequate to the situation, whether the manner in which they have approached and treated the work-people has been calculated to lead to peaceful co-operation with the workers, or whether it has been a manner cold, dictatorial, inflammatory and provocative. I shall seek to show that all those adjectives are justified. I am very reluctant to use them.
There are three major points of policy to which I want to refer and to which the strike situation relates: first, the Government's relations with nationalised industries and public services; second, regional policy; third, the general economic strategy for dealing with the country's economic needs, which includes the questions of inflation, wages and unemployment. As to the Government's position in relation to public service industries, I must say first that I acknowledge that in any matters affecting public servants directly in the public service or in nationally-owned industries, the Government have a special responsibility to use their influence in a way which they believe is conducive to the overall economic advantage of the country. I do not believe that the Government can say, should say or do say, "This is a matter for the Naional Coal Board. If it feels like offering more, it can do so. If it

does not, that is too bad." That is humbug, and it is very important that that kind of humbug should not be allowed to poison relations between the N.C.B. and the men or between any nationalised industry and its employees by failure of candour. The Government should come out into the open and state quite openly and perfectly reputably that they have an interest in the wage negotiations, and that it is the determining interest in the present circumstances as to what the settlement shall be. But with that interest goes a responsibility not only for candour but a responsibility to do what is constructive and is likely to lead to an agreement if one is possible.
How do we reconcile that with the way in which the negotiations have been conducted? The Government have not attempted to influence negotiations from a sense of responsibility and a helpful and constructive attitude. They have attempted nothing less than a diktat on the Coal Board and the miners as to the limits of any advance that can be made in the miners' wages. That is the fact. Everybody knows that it is the fact. Everybody knows that the ceiling on the advance offered to the miners by the Board has been fixed by the Government, and the fact that the Government discreetly say nothing about it is because they fail to observe the rule of candour.
The Government then become responsible for meeting the leaders. They are responsible for bringing about settlements in private industry where their good offices make it possible. But what about the coal strike? I have never listened to such dishonest pretence belatedly come to as the pretence that the request to Joe Gormley to meet the officials of the Department of Employment was the delicate and timid beginnings of the wish of the Secretary of State for Employment to be allowed to intervene in the dispute. That bogus and belated pretence for what was in fact an act of deliberate official discourtesy, of deliberately disclaiming the Minister's intention to intervene, is particularly difficult to swallow.
What in fact happened was that on the eve of the strike officials of the Department telephoned Mr. Gormley and asked him, "Would you come across and see us?" He replied, "Of course, I should like to see the Minister, but why should I come across to see you? What do you


want?" They said, "We want to be filled in on some of the facts of the dispute." We must stretch romanticism to an extreme degree if we are to believe that the officials of the Department really have to leave it to the eve of a strike before they want to be filled in. What they wanted to do was to sound out the officials of the mineworkers' union without taking the moral commitment which the Minister should have taken, and undertaking to preside over negotiations with a constructive purpose. I hope that the Secretary of State does not repeat that balderdash tonight, seriously telling us that the miners are at fault for there not being a meeting with him because his own timid first approach to them received the brush-off. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is in command of plain English. He has often shown himself to be. If he wanted to talk to the miners' leaders and get them round a table with a view to constructive talks, why in heaven's name did he not just telephone himself and ask Mr. Gormley to come?

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that in interventions by the Department under various Ministers of both parties in the past it has been very common for talks in a dispute to start with officials and lead on to other things. Is the right hon. Gentleman not also aware that it is common procedure in these matters to start by inviting the parties to come together on neutral territory to give the full background? Is he not aware that only a few weeks previously those tactics led to the settlement of the Coventry tool room dispute?

Mr. Lever: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman listened to the speech of his right hon. Friend who, in answer to a complaint that the Minister had not called the men round the table to talk about their problems with him, claimed that this official approach was quite obviously the beginning of the Minister calling them together. When the right hon. Gentleman saw that the offer of the officials was not regarded in the extraordinary way in which he appears to have expected, why did he not remedy this by a simple application of his voice to the telephone to call the men together? Why

has he not done so now? It is part of the dictatorial, insensitive attitude of the Government throughout the dispute.
As I have said, none of us has the right to be dogmatic or arrogant about how wage disputes should be settled, but the rule-of-thumb, dictatorial arrogance of the Government in this dispute comes particularly ill from a Government which before it was elected made great play of the high unemployment figures and the high cost of living increases not being adequately compensated for by wages. We heard a lot about that before the Government came to office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale reminded me a few weeks ago, Disraeli once said—he must have had a Conservative Government in mind—that one should not compare too closely the hours of courtship with the years of possession. The Government now have a very different attitude, and have failed to attempt to influence in a constructive way, even in the style of the conduct of the negotiations, this grim dispute.

Mr. Loughlin: rose—

Mr. Lever: I applaud my hon. Friend's attempts to intervene in the speech of the Minister, which I found very understandable, but I hope he will allow me to make my points.
Another example of the Government's attitude in these negotiations, provocative and negative, is that the right hon. Gentlemen cited with apparent approval one of the greatest blunders I can recall in industrial relations, that on the eve of this grim strike, the Coal Board told the miners that the offer it had made to them would necessarily not be open if they persisted in their strike. That is like saying, "You take our diktat or, if you fight, you will not get what we have acknowledged is a minimum fair deal". Analysed, this is a simple call to the miners for unconditional surrender. I never thought it was a particularly valuable strategy when applied to our Nazi enemies whom we were fighting in 1939, but when it is applied to the mining community of our country it is worse than bad strategy; it is a deeply dishonourable act as a reward to people who, as the Minister has admitted, have co-operated through the grim years of the contraction of the industry to seek to keep its viability.
Apart from the superficial acknowledgment traditional to the miners and their union, the Minister has said not a word to show that the Government recognise that miners have a special and individual case. All work people have a special and individual case, but no such individual case has been considered by the right hon. Gentleman. I must weary him a little by telling him what he appears not to recognise. He has not taken any steps, so far as I can discover from any words he has spoken this afternoon or from anything which the Government have said, even to begin to understand the feelings of the miners and the case they feel they have.
As everybody acknowledges, the miners do hard, dangerous and unhealthy work. There was a substantial correction in the post-war status of the miners which led to the miners being at the top of the league instead of in the miserable position they had been in before the war. This was not an inappropriate correction brought about by accident in post-war circumstances; it was a long overdue act of justice by society to correct the abominable treatment the mining community had endured for a long period.
In my dealings with miners I have been struck not only by their straight-forwardness and courage but by their entire good temper and lack of bitterness about past history which so often bedevils relations in other trades. The miners appear to be able to forget the mis-treatment to which they were subjected in the years before the war, and that is to their credit. But if we forget it, it will be much to our dishonour, and the Government appear totally to have forgotten the long record of the miners both before and after the war. Their status has gone. Their average wages have declined in relation to other people's. Over the last four years, even on averages, there has been a loss of real wages to the miners. Over a few months, if the offer had been accepted, their wages might have kept up with the recent changes in prices, but over four years the miners have not only watched a relative decline in their status but an actual decline in their real standards of life.
The averages are not very instructive. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) who knows far more about this than I do,

to deal with the details when he winds up the debate for the Opposition. Many men are taking home disgracefully low wages by any standards for skilled or unskilled men. The average is inflated. Some miners in certain circumstances are performing superhuman feats of overtime to earn high wages, and this distorts the picture of what the average man is getting. Those who earn overtime in the pits, earn it hard. Many of them work 12 hours a day underground to receive wages which are quite commonplace in industries outside the pits for full overtime. But that is not the lot of the average man.
What is worse is that this decline which the miners have witnessed and about which they feel keenly arises in part because their union, rightly, in the long-term interests of the miners and the industry, sought to co-operate with the Government and the Coal Board in dealing with the problems that beset a declining industry. They have simplified the wage structure. The bonuses, piecework rates and all the complexities which, for example, bedevil the motor industry, have been eliminated in the mining industry thanks to the miners and their union. When the motor workers are asked to do this they refuse because they say that at the end of the day by one means or another, if they make this sacrifice to logic and industrial advantage, they will be cheated. The miners have suffered as a result of their co-operation and not gained by it. So the right hon. Gentleman and the Coal Board are putting a premium on non-co-operation in simplifying wage structures.
The miners' union and the men have agreed to the shuffling of jobs whereby skilled men take on unskilled jobs at low wages so as to find a niche for themselves in this declining industry. The miners and the union have co-operated with the Coal Board in the agonising problems of redundancy that have arisen in these last few years when the number employed has shrunk to little more than one-third of the strength a relatively few years ago.
I am appalled that yet again today we hear that the miners will injure their prospects, and that they should be warned about competitive fuels—nuclear power, oil and the like—as if this were the miners' problem from which the Gov-


ernment dissociate themselves. I do not claim any special virtues as a Minister, but I should be ashamed, at the maximum moment of friction with the miners, whatever difference we had, if ever by one word or hint I did not identify with their grim anxieties, not only about what they have had to suffer in the past but about the difficulties they are likely to have to meet in the future.
The Government say, "You will injure yourselves", as if it were the concern of the miners alone and not of the Government. I did not hear this from the Minister when he spoke and I should like to hear the Government say, with humility, that, whatever differences divide them and the miners in this dispute, they share and identify with the anxieties and difficulties of the miners in the declining industry situation with which they are faced. This warning must not be used as a leverage to support a Government diktat.
The Government have wholly ignored the regional aspects of the problem. Seventy per cent. of the miners work in depressed regions or regions of high unemployment. What asinine behaviour it is to go searching around these areas of high unemployment to find some emergency means of giving more employment while, on the other hand, exercising self-righteous pedantry in keeping down the buying power of the miners to a point where it leads to a disruptive strike with the consequences which the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out. This is a prescription, if we are to believe him, for more unemployment in this region of high unemployment. Having refused the miners a modest and flexible response to their demands for wage increases on the ground that this would threaten the economy, the Government would rather have a strike which will add in the long run to unemployment in areas of high unemployment. If ever there was an area where there should be some flexibility and response to wage demands it is an area of high unemployment, because by making that response the buying power of the wage earners in that area would be increased. I am not saying that this justifies an unlimited increase, but it certainly justifies a far more flexible approach than the Government have shown. This should have been kept in

mind, but we have not heard a word from the Minister or from the Government about the regional aspects of this problem.
Another matter on which the Minister might at least have treated us to his views is the financial structure of the Coal Board, which was saddled at the outset with the cost of taking over the mines. I will not reflect on the 1945 Labour Government by suggesting that we unknowingly overpaid for the mines, but we can say that a very handsome payment was made for the neglected collieries of those days. If I may put on a private entrepreneurial hat for the moment, it is not a payment which I would have thought reasonable to pay. The Coal Board and the miners have been saddled with the burden. I say "the miners" because every time the miners want a wage increase they are referred to the balance sheet and told that there is interest to be paid on that huge debt before anyone can think of paying more wages.

Mr. Richard Kelley: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that if the Coal Board was allowed to fix prices according to ordinary commercial criteria it would be in a different position today, approaching this terrible calamity? It would then be able to measure the demands of its employees against the price it might be able to charge for its products in the commercial market.

Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend has a good point, but the point that I am seeking to make is that instead of being allowed to pursue commercial criteria the Board has been saddled with this debt which is unrealistic, particularly in a declining industry. The debt is already too high in relation to the assets, but in the nature of a declining industry those assets have been vanishing and so the miners are servicing a debt on machines which are no longer in use, covering pits which have been long closed down. In 1965 my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) wrote off a substantial sum, but that is nearly seven years ago.
I want to know why we cannot write off a great deal more of the debt in view of all the closures that have taken


place since then. This is where I complain of the Minister's attitude. He ought to be aware, and to show awareness, of these things. The charge per ton by way of interest is higher today than it was before my right hon. Friend wrote off the debt. In terms of the burden on the miners and the industry the weight of debt is greater on the contracted industry of 1972 than before. Since the right hon. Gentleman does not want to push up prices but wants to do justice by the miners, why cannot he perform this elementary act of financial justice that would automatically have been provided for in the accounts of any private firm, and write off a substantial part of the debt interests?
That interest amounts to about the same amount in total as the total offer made by the Board. If the Government make a serious incursion into this debt they will find themselves with some millions available which would provide the facilities to make a flexible response to the miners without adding a penny to the price of coal.
This coal strike must be seen as part of general policy which cannot be acceptable to us. It is a policy of selective pressure on the public sector while, if there is any pressure at all on the private sector, it is applied in a very different way. We cannot say to the public sector as the Minister sought to say today, "You must make a sacrifice in your legitimate claims because we are trying to protect prices and the public." We cannot say that to miners and public servants if we are not attempting some control over other people's wages. The Government remind me of an old music-hall song in a rather obvious way, which used to go something like this:
When I'm not near the girl I love, I love the girl I'm near.
I do not say that the Government love the public industries—I acquit them of that charge—but when they cannot control the wage rises they would most like to control they control the wages of those where they are a monopoly employer, where they are backed by an unlimited public purse.
This is not good enough. We cannot expect one-sided sacrifices by public servants and State industries when they are not being protected. We will end up with a situation where there is an undeclared

incomes policy diktat in the public sector and a million unemployed in the private sector. For us this is not an acceptable policy.

Mr. R. Carr: I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman would advocate as an incomes policy.

Mr. Lever: The right hon. Gentleman has chosen his moment of interrogation well. I can hardly expect the House to allow me to enlarge on what is, as I admitted, a very difficult question. Sometimes it is possible to express a certain humility as to how we may achieve what is right and comprehensive but that does not mean that one forfeits one's right, when one sees plainly wrong things being done, to denounce such things. Whatever a right incomes policy may he, and I have every sympathy with this or any other Government in thinking out and groping for one, if it is done with a little humility and compassion I welcome it.
One thing is quite clear and it is that what I have described as a diktat in the public sector—the risk of grim strikes, poverty and the ruin of one of our great industries with consequential damage to the people of the country—is not a policy for incomes. Nor is it a substitute for neglect in the private sector to claim proudly that that sector now has a million unemployed threatening it. It is no good saying, "If we cannot dictate to them when we are not a monopoly employer we can at least provide an overhang of a million unemployed."
What is to be done? Are we really to go on with the attitude shown by the Minister today, of pious sermonising, or are the Government at long last going to get them round a table and start talking flexibly and intelligently with the miners in a real effort to understand why they feel as they do, why they are incensed and why they are prepared to suffer as they are likely to suffer, have already started suffering—they and their families? Do the Government believe that these men are their fellow citizens, in line with the panegyric with which the Minister began his speech? If they do, then the only honourable thing they can do is to get them round a table.
I want to warn the right hon. Gentleman that the alternative is a fight to a finish and it is one which no one will


relish when it starts. There are two possibilities in theory. One is that we would achieve a dishonourable victory with a trail of bitterness, and beat the miners back to work, as happened in 1926. The other is that we will achieve a ruinous defeat because the miners are not the kind of people the Government seem to believe them to be. These are among the most loyal and determined men we have. These are the yeomen of England, Scotland and Wales. These are the men who rarely turn against their fellow men. I once said in this House when I had the honour and privilege of being a Minister dealing with their affairs that the thing that struck me most about the miners was their open-facedness. They had the faces of men who have spent long years wrestling in comradeship against the grim hazards of nature, not wriggling foxily, determined to outwit their fellow men. These are not men who by nature are aggressive or eager to injure their fellow men. Their record proves to the contrary. If they feel their cause to be righteous, if they feel they are being subjected to a humiliating diktat by a Government which has totally failed to understand their grievances, they will fight and fight until not only they suffer but our whole country suffers. I do not believe the people of the country are prepared to stand idly by and watch an attempted re-enactment of the terrible experiences of 1926.
It is my privilege on behalf of my party to pledge that we will not stand idly by and that we stand solidly behind the miners in their sense of grievance and intend, as we believe the whole of the trade union movement intends, to support them in their efforts to secure justice. In doing so we we will be giving expression to the deepest wishes of the great majority of forward-looking people in this country irrespective of party.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Philip Holland: I echo the concern about the present situation expressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever); and, like the right hon. Gentleman, I do not approach this matter in any censorious or arrogant spirit. I am sure that nobody wishes to approach this question dogmatically.
It is an over-simplification to assume that 350,000 mineworkers speak with one voice, take the same attitude or even face the same set of problems in their daily working lives between one pit and another and between one part of the country and another. It might be helpful therefore if, before I develop the points I wish to make and ask the questions I wish to ask, I first filled in the background against which I make my judgments.
I am concerned in my constituency with the prospering South Nottinghamshire coalfield, and particularly with the operations at Calverton, Cotgrave and Gedling. Not only do these three pits currently offer ample opportunity for mineworkers to take full advantage of any productivity offers, but drilling operations now taking place have encouraging implications for the future. Drilling at Calverton has recently proved a seven-foot coal section in one seam and over six feet is clean coal; six seams over 4 feet thick have been found in reserve at Cotgrave's million-ton coal factory and there are good prospects of proving substantial reserves this year at the very productive Gedling colliery.
It is against this background of high-production collieries, with a reserve potential to ensure a growth development for the future, that I view with sadness what can only be a serious setback for the industry. Yet though my constituents do not risk pit closures with redundancies, as do some mineworkers in other parts of the county and country, they stand to gain less from negotiations on an industry-wide basis than those employed in some of the other pits. My own view is coloured by this fact. In fact, if it were practicable—and I know that it is not, in this industry—my constituents would stand to gain from plant bargaining rather than industry-wide bargaining.
A number of conflicting reasons for the present industrial action by the N.U.M. have been enunciated by commentators inside and outside the industry. The less sophisticated have said that the strike concerns more money for men whose wages have fallen behind those in other industries. Certainly the negotiations have been about that and if there had been no offer from the Coal Board then the strike would be about that. The more sophisticated have said that industrial action arises from a natural and


understandable fear of men employed in a rapidly declining industry. I am not sufficiently sophisticated to follow that line of reasoning. I feel that the opposite would obtain.
When the Coal Board's improved offer was being rejected, the President of the N.U.M. said that the sole issue of difference was whether an extra rise in output of one cwt. of coal per man shift should be paid in anticipation of its attainment, or retrospectively on 1st November next after it has been achieved. Therefore, I wish to address myself to that aspect.
Where the rise in output can be quickly achieved, the union requirement as regards the cash settlement would appear to have been met, with a third of the productivity increase being paid retrospectively. Therefore mineworkers at pits where the increase in productivity can be readily achieved are now suffering the privation of loss of earnings for no reason other than a laudable sense of loyalty to those workers who are in a less fortunate position in the older pits.
It may be argued that the third one cwt. per manshift required is unattainable. To argue that is to accuse the union negotiators of extreme dishonesty for making a claim on the basis of unattainable productivity. Certainly that charge cannot be levied at the president of the N.U.M. whose record shows him to be a moderate and responsible trade union leader. It is reasonable to assume that an extra three cwt. per manshift is attainable, in the view of the N.U.M. negotiators, by next November.
The only question in the minds of the N.U.M. must be how quickly it can be achieved and how far back the November pay award will be backdated. At the worst, there will be no backdating so the total loss to each mineworker will be a pound a week for 43 weeks, from 1st January to 1st November—which, on my calculations, amounts to £43. It will take fewer than three weeks loss of earnings on strike to cancel that benefit even if the strike were to persuade the Board to meet the union's last demand.
A year ago, when the Nottinghamshire miners resisted the attempts of those in the Yorkshire coalfield to persuade them to join the unofficial industrial action, active members of a South Nottingham N.U.M. branch told me that in this day

and age when industrial relations are highly developed, people who go on strike are always the losers because the marginally improved offers that may sometimes—but only sometimes, not always—accrue are more than discounted by the loss of earnings during the strike. This strike, I fear, amply emphasises his point.
As a practitioner in industrial relations I have never been critical of the inherent right of a man to withdraw his labour to preserve or improve his standard of living. But I cannot understand the reason for a strike on such a narrow issue as this in an industry where industrial relations have been progressively improving in recent years. I do not understand this union's death wish to take action which must result in the earlier closure of the less productive pits in an industry whose manpower has declined severely from 760,000 in 1959 to 350,000 in 1971. It is open to argument what effect this will have in terms of accelerated redundancy, but what is not open to argument is the damage being done to industrial relations during this difficult and critical time.
I do not presume to argue either for or against the merits of the details of the union's claim or the Coal Board's offer because my industrial relations experience has taught me the dangers of pontificating at long range without knowing how the i's were dotted or the t's were crossed.
In principle I am certain that there is no argument that mineworkers' wages have fallen behind those in other industries and at the lower end of the scale they are inadequate. This, as I understand it, is not disputed by the Coal Board. What I question is the wisdom of industry-wide industrial action over an issue as narrow as that described by Mr. Joe Gormley as the failure to agree at the end of the talks and immediately before the strike took place.
I said a few moments ago—and I meant it—that the N.U.M. President has shown himself to be both moderate and responsible in the past, but there are two things which seem to me to be out of character and I do not understand them. First I do not understand why the union was not willing to put the improved offer to a ballot of individual mineworkers but was content to leave the decision to the


national executive to be endorsed subsequently by a series of delegate conferences.
Secondly, having failed to reach agreement, I do not understand why the union should refuse to bring in a third party to consider the problem objectively. This is the normal practice in most industries.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: You would sack him if he did.

Mr. Holland: The answer to that seated intervention by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) is that no one can dispute that the chairman of the arbitration court is a man of known independence of mind. Perhaps in winding up the debate my right hon. Friend will be able to throw more light on why arbitration was refused and can say what efforts are being made to conciliate.
The withdrawal of the Board's package offer when it was rejected by the union leaves the way open to a new approach on what might be a more acceptable basis, if it is treated positively. May we know whether new approaches to the union are being prepared on a revised basis by the Board? May we also know whether any effort is being made to lay new foundations on which to rebuild confidence and seek solutions acceptable to both sides?
There is no profit to be gained in recrimination, destructive criticism, or party political posturing. There is much that can and ought to be done constructively, and I hope that we may learn this evening of the sort of new initiatives that might usefully be taken at this stage to end industrial action—action which, if prolonged can spell only disaster for the industry and for those who play a part in it. If I may end with one sad thought about the present dispute, it is this. What a way to celebrate the 25th anniversary of an event which, in 1947, was widely acclaimed by the whole industry!

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pentland: The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) has drawn attention to a number of the background features of the present strike. I shall attempt to deal with some of them, although I shall keep in mind Mr. Speaker's request to hon.

Members to be brief since I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in this very important debate.
This debate has been remarkable in that we have heard two Front Bench speeches which have been diametrically opposed in content, in compassion and in understanding of the gravity of the situation that the country faces. The Minister's speech was one of the most depressing and distressing that I have ever heard in my 16 years as a Member of this House. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) tried to face the difficulties involved in this dispute fairly and squarely. What is more, he projected some ideas into the mind of the Secretary of State as to how the strike could be settled.
It may be said of those of us who spring from the mining industry and who are members of the National Union of Mineworkers that inevitably we must become emotionally involved when we have a situation such as the present one in the coal-mining industry. I accept that at once. Bearing in mind the history, the struggles and the sacrifice of those engaged in the hazardous occupation of mining, inevitably when difficulties arise in the industry it draws an emotional response from everyone connected with it.
Having said that, I suggest that anyone who believes that this strike is the result of a sudden emotional upsurge on the part of those engaged in the industry makes a very serious mistake. This strike has come about only after the miners and their leaders have made a hard, cool, long and calculated reappraisal of the miner's position in our industrial society today. They are determined to fight the National Coal Board and this Government with all the loyalty and with all the dignity that they can command.
In the main, public sympathy is moving towards the miners. It is also noticeable that the Government and some sections of the Press have concentrated their comments and critique of the strike position upon drawing the attention of miners to the high level of coal stocks, the possibility of accelerated pit closures, and so on. These arguments will make no impact on the miners. Over the past 12 years or so, the miner has lived with the threat of pit closures. He has worked


with a sense of insecurity in the coal-mining industry. The simple truth is that the miner is tired of being pushed around. He is tired of being warned about pit closures. Above all, he is tired of seeing his wages slip from first position in the industrial wages league table to their present low position.
Since 1951, average industrial earnings in the country have increased by 218 per cent. The average earnings of miners over the same period have increased by only 164 per cent. I believe that that is a very significant factor when we discuss increases in earnings. What is more, over the past 10 years, output per man shift has increased dramatically. Over the same period, the miner has co-operated all along the line with the National Coal Board in cutting back manpower requirements from more than 600,000 to the present level of 280,000. In other words, the miners have a proud and honourable record in industrial relationships. No one can deny that.
We on this side of the House feel that the country must recognise another feature of this strike. It is not only the industrial issues or aspects involved. There are other deep political implications involved in this strike, for which the Government must accept their full share of responsibility. It is as a consequence of the Government's policy that the miners have been driven to use the strike weapon in the last resort to obtain a realistic wage increase.
It has been apparent from the very beginning of this Government's term of office that they have been determined to resist wage demands by the unions. In the nationalised industries, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have used their power to enforce this policy. This is what is happening in the present dispute, Although the Government may deny it, they have drawn the attention of the chairman of the National Coal Board to their 7 to 8 per cent. norm which they have determined should be the extent of all wage settlements. They have not been so successful in enforcing their policy in the private sector of industry, but certainly they are prepared to have a showdown in the publicly-owned sector. We saw evidence of that last year with the Post Office workers. Today, it is the miners with whom the Government are having a showdown. No matter how

sympathetic the Chairman of the National Coal Board may be to the miners' claim—and in saying that I do not mean that he has been too sympathetic so far—the Government have ensured that he has not the freedom to negotiate a realistic and sensible wage settlement. For that reason, the Government have a tremendous responsibility in deciding how the strike will end.
Let us assume that the miners are forced to return to work without obtaining a sensible and realistic settlement. Do the Government believe that they could then sit back and say, "This is a victory for our incomes policy?". If they believe that, they will be making the most foolish assessment of all time, because, as my right hon. Friend indicated, the miners will return with great bitterness, deeply angry, and the coal industry will never be the same again. If the miners do not return from this strike at least with honour and the dignity with which they went into it, the coal industry is in for a tremendously difficult time in the years ahead. Therefore, the Government have a monumental responsibility to ensure that reason and common sense prevail.
The Government should also pay full regard to what the miners have done over the years since nationalisation. I referred earlier to the fact that the miners co-operated with the Coal Board in the peaceful rundown of manpower requirements. But they did more than that. It is well known that British coal mines are now the most efficient and safest in the world. That has been brought about in no small measure by the co-operation which the Coal Board has had all along the line from the miners.
Before the strike began industrial relations in this industry were on a par with those in industry in any part of this country or the western world. Not so many years ago, miners had to be trained almost overnight to deal with mechanised units which were coming on to the coal face. Almost overnight they had to be trained to deal with vast, cumbersome machines on the coalface which would frighten the living daylights out of people with no knowledge of coal mining.
All this mechanisation, retraining, good industrial relations and the acceptance of a declining industry in years gone


by will go by the board, because the Government are not prepared to face the serious situation which has now developed and which will get worse with every week which passes.
There is another vital issue involved in this dispute. I believe that, apart from the Government's responsibility to the miners, they also have a responsibility to the nation at large to ensure that we continue to have a successful coal-mining industry. We all know that in the past experts advising all Governments—Tory and Labour—have been completely off course at times in trying to assess our long-term energy requirements and the part that coal should play in meeting them. They have often been wrong in this regard. This has also applied to America and Russia, but they are doing something about their coal industries. It is recognised now by all people who study these matters that coal will be needed in vast quantities for a long time ahead and that most certainly beyond this century we shall need coal in this country.
It is becoming more and more apparent that, looking ahead to the country's growing energy demands, we should have a fuel policy based more firmly on our old indigenous resources. In other words, a sensible line for any British Government is to reduce our dependence on vulnerable imported energy and to have greater confidence in the British coal industry than we have in Middle East oil. We all know what is happening about oil prices now. If the strike is allowed to drag on because the Government are not prepared to acknowledge the justice of the miners' demand, the chances of our securing a sensible fuel policy based on the nation's indigenous energy resources will be seriously and severely jeopardised in future. We shall find that in the long term everyone in this country will suffer because a tremendous price will have to be paid for imported fuel to meet the ever-increasing energy demands of the nation.
I could go on. I believe, and I think that all my hon. Friends believe, that the Government have it in their power to end this strike very quickly. The ball is completely in their court. The miners are not on strike just for the hell of it; they are on strike because Government

policy has forced them, after 46 years, to use the strike weapon to get a reasonable and sensible settlement. I suggest, therefore, that the Government should authorise the National Coal Board to sit down with the leaders of the N.U.M. and instruct it to negotiate a sensible and justifiable increase for the miners.
Over the years of nationalisation the miners have fulfilled their responsibilities and obligations not only to the industry in which they work but to the nation at large. I believe that the time has now come, in the present situation, for this Tory Government to fulfil their responsibilities and obligations to the nation at large by recognising in full the justice of the miners' demands and doing something about them very quickly.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am sure that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland), whose speech was moderate and constructive and with much of which I agreed, will forgive me if I do not follow him into particulars. It seems that the debate is becoming constructive and helpful, and I hope that sensible suggestions will emerge from it.
I cannot claim to have the same personal deep knowledge of this industry which many hon. Gentlemen opposite possess. There is a long and honourable relationship between the Labour Party and the mining industry which I respect. I respect it particularly as I have the duty to represent what is still very much a mining constituency.
There are two collieries within my constituency boundaries and others very near. Within the constituency there are 15,000 to 20,000 people—miners and their families—who are directly affected by the strike. Taking into account retired miners and others living within my area, a very large number indeed feel a degree of personal involvement in the industry. It is this more than anything else which has created that deep fellow feeling which is so marked and priceless a feature of all mining areas.
My great fear this afternoon is that the coal industry, which is still a great and necessary industry and the foundation of the prosperity and unity of my area, is at risk. During the last two or three weeks, when the strike has been the main local topic of conversation, many people


have come to discuss it with me. I have met people throughout the area and have detected three feelings: first, a basic and very real sympathy with the miners which is undeniable; second, a real regret that the strike is on; third, a genuine fear that if it does drag on this industry will never be the same again and in our area may be dealt a crippling or, indeed, a mortal blow.
I hope that I do not sound too presumptuous when I say that there does not always seem to be a tremendous understanding of the mining community on the benches on which I have the honour to sit. Perhaps unless one has a personal relationship of background or job, or through representing such an area, one can never appreciate just what makes a mining community tick. I do not pretend, after fighting elections in two mining constituencies and representing one for 19 months, to know all about it, but I have been able to detect something. Mining is a dangerous calling and it creates a community spirit. When one considers the background of so many mining areas, the tragedies that have occurred for various families and the fact that there is hardly a family in which the mining diseases have not struck at some time or other, and when one looks around the scarred and desecrated countryside, adding to all this a memory of the hazards that have been created and bravely faced during the period of contraction, one begins to appreciate something of what we are talking about today.
We are talking about a body of men who have given much to create the nation's wealth and whose rewards may often seem from afar to be fair ones. But those who see the figures at a distance, without appreciating the toil that produced them or the drabness in which they have to be enjoyed, do not get a balanced picture. It is true—I would not pretend otherwise—that for some the rewards have never been fair. I am talking obviously of many of the surface workers. Sometimes we forget that many of these workers are people who, through injury or disease, have been forced to leave a more rewarding occupation on the coal face. Anyone, therefore, with even a smattering of knowledge of a mining community is bound to feel sympathetic to the miners at present. I do not disguise my sym-

pathy. I hope that the House will accept it as being a real sympathy. But it is a sympathy which is mixed with very deep sadness that the strike is on. I come from an area where even in the recent ballot the majority—a very small majority—was against the strike. Although it is impossible to say what happened in the collieries which I know well, I am reasonably confident that there was a majority against striking.
Many local miners and miners wives have been to see me and have regretted the strike infinitely. At my advice bureau only last week a young couple came along to talk about their great personal problems of debt and so on caused because the breadwinner is no longer able to take home the wage he had been taking home, whether it be good, bad or indifferent.
I was visiting a local home recently during the overtime ban and one of the women who worked there said to me, "A year ago I had been able to save enough money for our holiday in the summer; now I am in debt". A miner came to me in the street the other day and said, "There is not much point in striking if there will be no job at the end of it". There we have the nub of the matter.
I have spoken to many other people over the last few days. Only this morning I spent nearly two hours over the telephone talking to various people connected with the mining industry in my constituency. They brought up so many important factors which we should not neglect. They mentioned the danger of deteriorating equipment and the effects that this can have, the effect on underground conditions which prolonged periods of absence can create.
In my constituency is one magnificent million-ton pit, Littleton colliery. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry came with me on a visit to this colliery some months ago. We spent a long time underground talking to the miners and seeing what was being done. Marvellous things are being done. Even in that splendid colliery where there is no immediate danger, there could be a danger if this strike were prolonged beyond five or six weeks because geological difficulties could be created. People are obviously fearful about this.
Another colliery is Cannock Wood, which is much smaller but whose existence has for a long time been to some extent in doubt. The problems of this colliery graphically illustrate the problems of the strike for my constituency. Some six or seven hundred men are employed there and over 50 per cent. of the work force are over 50 years of age. What will happen to them if the strike is prolonged and if that colliery never reopens?
It is not just the collieries that are at stake. In Cannock we also have one of the computer centres of the industry, which employs six hundred people. At present this is working normally although obviously the input is substantially lower than it has been. The staff have tremendous sympathy for the miners. They also feel an instinctive loyalty to the industry which employs them in a different capacity. As one of them put it, they have a strong conscience with regard to processing the pensions and the sick pay, and the safety wages being paid to those keeping the pits in trim at present. In an industry which is drastically restructured, as this industry could be if the strike were prolonged, even their jobs could be in jeopardy.
There was an incident outside this computer centre yesterday to which perhaps it would be as well to refer because it was on the national news that two of the miners, members of a picket, were arrested. I stress that this was an isolated incident. Mostly the pickets and everyone around are behaving with great good humour. I pay tribute especially to the police and the way they are dealing with these problems at present. But tensions are being heightened and we all have to appreciate the fact that lines are hardening. I spoke a few moments ago about the ballot in my area some weeks ago. Lines are hardening now and if a ballot were taken tomorrow I think the result would be different. It would be dishonest not to say this. It would also be dishonest not to say that the Government, rightly or wrongly, are being blamed locally in my area because people are seeking a scapegoat. But equally it is true that with a nationalised industry the Government must bear a large degree of responsibility. This is inevitable. The

Chairman of the National Coal Board has withdrawn the offer that was made. Here again, I prefer not to debate the merits or otherwise of that particular action. But because that has been done, I hope that tonight my right hon. Friend will make it clear that the Board's hands will not be tied in future negotiations and that there will be some flexibility. I hope that, when the sides sit down around the table again—I hope that that will be very soon—they will negotiate realistically within a global sum, so that those to whom I refer, who are particularly badly paid, can get a much more substantial percentage rise than perhaps some others. I hope that hon. Members opposite will feel this a reasonable and fair suggestion.
If this could be done and could be favourably regarded by the Board, there would be no point in prolonging this dispute, which is bound to lead to bitterness. I would say to the miners in my constituency, whose interests I genuinely have at heart, that in intransigence there is no hope at all. The future of their industry is at stake. They were reluctant in the Midlands to come out on strike. A strong feeling was expressed to me by many people over the weekend that if there had been a ballot on the last offer or on whether to go to arbitration, the result might have been that we did not have this debate today. But we are having it; the strike is on.
Now is the time for some initiative to be taken, because no one can benefit from a long drawn out confrontation. Attitudes will harden as the pay packets run out. We all know that at the moment the situation has not begun to bite financially for some people, but within a few days it will and then the attitudes will harden.
It will also be stupid to pretend that public sympathy will remain unchanged. If we have a cold spell—one could start tonight—and if the fires burn low and cannot be recharged, public sympathy will dwindle.
From the bitterness which would then be engendered throughout the nation, no one would benefit. The industry would suffer a mortal blow. I therefore make an earnest plea to all involved—the sooner we can get back to talking, working and earning, the better for everyone.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: We have now heard three speeches from the Conservative Party, one of which I can only describe as a disgrace in the present situation. The other two have been a little more conciliatory, and, while I do not expect those hon. Members to be in our Lobby tonight, because of the tone of their speeches perhaps I might advise them to have an early nap and to go home without voting at all.
This is the first official miners' strike since 1926. That is 46 years ago and a man who is still working in the industry at the age of 64 would have been only 18 then. That strike happened four years before I was born. I am now representing an area and a coalfield which was instrumental in breaking that strike and the unity of the union in 1926, and which coined a new word for the trade union world—"Spencerism". This fact has left bitter memories in the industry and in the coalfield, where many people still refer to one another as "Spencerites".
The coal industry last year produced 133,315,000 tons of coal and its proceeds were £5·84 per ton. Anyone who complains about the price of coal should ponder that fact. As the miners see it, everyone makes a profit from the industry except them. When the Secretary of State talked about a 15 per cent. increase in the cost of fuel, I wondered whether he was referring to the price that the miners get for it or the price of the end product when it gets to the consumer.
The miners are fed up with subsidising industry and the country at the expense of their own wages. They are fed up with being threatened, as the Secretary of State did today. They have been threatened since 1957: "If you do not do as you are told, we will close the pits". Up to now, the miners have done as they are told. They have co-operated, and what has it got them? The pits have still closed.
I would add my backing to what my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) said. The threat of closure now runs off the backs of the coal miners. They are fed up with that threat and with being told that they cannot be paid the rate for the job, that they must accept depression of their wages or the industry will lose markets. The

price of their moderation and co-operation is that their wages have been depressed, markets have been lost and pits have been closed. They have been bombarded since 1957 with the story that they belong to a dying industry which must give way to nuclear power, North Sea gas, oil and the products of technology.
They are also fed up with being made the scapegoats of the nation's social conscience. The news media and Government spokesmen tell them that they must not ask for an increase in wages because that will increase the price of coal to the pensioners, who cannot afford to buy the coal now. It is not the fault of the miners that this country does not pay the pensioners enough or that the price of coal when it leaves the pithead has trebled by the time it gets to the consumer.
In the Notts coalfield, which mined 22½ million tons of coal last year. the average price which they got was £5·14 per ton—and most of that was sold for about £3 per ton to the power stations in the area.
The case for an increase in wages is unanswerable, and I do not intend to bandy the claims about today. We all know them; if not, we should not be here at all. It is enough to say that everyone in the Coal Board, from the highest management downwards, in private conversation anyway, concedes that the miners are getting a raw deal. It is little use telling the miners that there is no money in the kitty to pay them a fair wage. What the Government and the nation must decide now is whether they really want a coal industry, and, if so, of what kind.
This is what the strike is all about. I was amazed at the Secretary of State's speech, which consisted of threats to the miners and showed no conception of the feeling of the miners at large, not one idea of why moderate, co-operating men are forced into striking in such bitterness and anger. The miners will no longer accept an industry which consists of 34,500 men on £18 a week, 29,000 on £19 a week, 5,800 craftsmen on £21.70, a further group of 7,400 craftsmen on £23.62. 10,500 men on £22.75 and, after 1st January and parity, 25,000 men on £30 a week. These are not minimum wages; they are maximum wages.
The only way for a miner to supplement his pay is by overtime, if and when


it is available. I do not know what the N.C.B. information sheet was supposed to do today. I can only assume that it was sent to the Minister as a good brief for him to read out slowly and deliberately, as he did. The more I look at the details the more I see them as an argument for giving the miners more rather than less.
It is proudly proclaimed that a miner with two children is getting £18 a week. This is said as though this wage is a great victory for the N.C.B. over the N.U.M. But this man takes home only £16.42. It is then suggested that if the N.U.M. accepts an extra £2 the £18-a-week man will be getting £20, which is equal to the dockers. But that sum will be the maximum for the miners, whereas the dockers can add on whatever they get for piecework claims and other extras.
If the N.U.M. were to accept an extra £2 and the £18 man got £20, after deductions he would not receive the £18.42 which one might expect but only £17.74. Thus, based even on the figures given by the N.C.B., the £18-a-week man would immediately be 68p worse off. In other words, he would lose 13s. 6d. in old money before even leaving the pit yard on Friday evening. If one adds to his loss the 11 per cent. rise in the cost of living in the last year, and the loss of the three waiting days, the picture is in full perspective.
I referred to the loss of the three waiting days, but they are not really lost. Only the money for them is lost. A miner lying in Mansfield Hospital with his leg in the air knows that for the first three days that he lies in that position he will not get any money. Those employed in the mining industry suffer greatly from injury and disease. Indeed, on average miners are off work 28 days a year recovering from injury or disease. If one adds to this catalogue of losses the things that have happened in the last year or so one gets the true picture. After all, it has been estimated that between 90 per cent. and 95 per cent. of miners will be affected by the "Foul Rent Act", as it is being called. This will take at least another £26 a year out of the pockets of the miners.

Mr. Adam Hunter: Will my hon. Friend mention

the number of miners who are having to collect family income supplement? Is it not an absolute disgrace that they should have to rely on this money?

Mr. Concannon: Yes, and I was amazed that when the Secretary of State was asked this question he could not or would not answer it. He should have admitted that in many places the wages of mine workers are so low that they are entitled to this supplement, though many are too proud to claim it.
Since before Christmas my telephone has been ringing non-stop. During the recess I heard hon. Gentlemen opposite exclaim on television, "We agree that your wages are low, but this is the wrong time to take this action. You should not be doing this now." They should have told the miners the right time to take this action.
Prior to 1st January the highest paid miners were the Nottinghamshire and Kent power loader men who for £30 a week did the most health-and-soul-destroying job imaginable. Such a man with two children must pay £3·64 tax, £1·59 insurance and 35p other deductions, giving him a total take-home pay of £24·42. He is offered an extra £1·90 giving him a total of £31·90; his tax goes up to £4·21, his insurance to £1·63 and his other deductions stay at 35p, giving him a take-home wage of £25·71, representing an increase of £1·29.
How much of that increase would be lost automatically by the 11 per cent. rise in the cost of living, not to mention the fact that the loss of money for the three waiting days is higher for these men than for other categories of workers? Further, in most of the areas to which I am referring the Rent Act, when applied in October, will cost an extra £1 straight away. Once again, the standard of living of the miner and his family is depressed, and the miners will not take this any longer.

Mr. Skinner: It is important to bear in mind that the N.C.B. owns 100,000 properties. From the moment the Rent Act comes into operation in October, the Board will claw back an extra £5·2 million as a result of the increased rent to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Concannon: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, which we in


our part of the world appreciate to the full. He and I live in neighbouring constituencies and have common problems.
The story of this strike is not to be found by running between Euston Road and Hobart House but in the minds of the miners and their families. Every weekend I am told by my constituents, and particularly by miners' wives "When you get to Westminster for heaven's sake do something, Don, to talk some sense into them." I am often told, "My man is not a violent person" and I have replied, "I know, I know him well". But they cannot vouch for what these men are likely to do in this situation. Branch union meetings are giving full backing to what the National Executive is saying.
The miners have reached the point when they are saying, "We have been told what to do for far too long. All along we have been told that we are no longer required, that the country no longer needs our coal and cannot afford to pay us a fair wage. Why should we bother to keep the pits open? If the country does not need the coal, in future we will leave it where it is in the ground." These are dangerous thoughts, but after years of moderation and co-operation, who can blame the miners for trying something different?
Hon. Members who represent mining constituencies have been having a particularly busy time lately attending meetings and receiving representations. Last Sunday morning I attended a branch meeting—in fact, it was a meeting of my old branch—at which more than 700 miners were present. We have had some hectic times and it is clear that now that the strike is on it will be a damned sight harder job getting the miners back to work.
This situation will not be faced by fancy gimmickry. Only "brass" will end this strike, and I am referring to a damned sight more cash than the Government have so far offered. This is why the situation is getting uglier and uglier all the time. The pickets are out, and what has been said about flashpoints being inevitable must be true. Unless the Government change the inflexible view they have held up to now, we are in for a long and bitter struggle. Coal stocks will last for only so long.
Instructions given to doctors to knock miners for the duration of the strike off sickness and injury benefit are not helping matters. The same can be said of the contingency plans which are now being made at Aldershot for the use of troops. The Government should ponder long and hard before calling in the troops. Quite a number of them joined the Service because of the low wages being paid in the pits, and it is their fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters who are involved in this dispute. It is remarkable how quickly the information is coming to us in a roundabout way from the troops.
I represent the town of Mansfield which is in the centre of the Nottinghamshire coalfield, a coalfield which, since nationalisation, has made a profit of over £260 million, and that after paying interest charges. Unlike other coalfields we have not suffered pit closures since 1957. The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) referred to three pits in his constituency two of which had opened since 1957. It is clear, therefore, that we in Nottinghamshire are not in the same position as miners in other areas. We have been opening pits and increasing production. Indeed, production in our area increased last year.
The pits are now cosmopolitan in character, with miners from Scotland, Wales, Lancashire, Northumberland, Poland, Derbyshire, Jamaica—one need only name the place and we have people from it. Many of our miners have lived through four pit closures. This is why I say that threats such as we have heard today roll off their backs like water off a duck.
In 1969 this area voted 30 per cent. in support of the National Executive. In 1970 it had risen to 40 per cent. and this year it was 54 per cent. It was not quite the required 55 per cent., but I am sure that my constituents would gladly back to a greater percentage than the required amount any action proposed now by the National Executive. What would the Minister and the Government do if there were another ballot and the men came out in favour of staying on strike? Would the Minister pay up? That was the impression that I gained from the Secretary of State when he opened the debate.
Miners in this coalfield have a productivity rate of more than 60 cwts. per


man-shift; miners, earning £30 a week, were the highest paid in the country. But miners who are doing that job, and that included myself up to 1966, were getting that and sometimes more in 1966, not in terms of what it would buy but in actual money terms. When I mentioned that at a meeting the chorus from the miners was that one can go further back than that. In 1966 and before then many miners in Nottinghamshire were earning considerably more than they are earning today. They have seen their standard of living going down during the last 10 years.
Mansfield is the centre of this coalfield. About one-third of the adult male population goes out of town to work and about 95 per cent. of the male population of the outlying villages work in the industry. There is not another industry in the area which employs 500 males. Business, trade and commerce in the Mansfield area tick over and depend on the industry. Nearly £50 million a year is paid out in wages to miners in Nottinghamshire, so this strike will have a devastating effect in the area, yet the sympathy of the people is with the miners.
The feelings of people in the area are best explained not by any Fleet Street journalist but by the editor of my local paper, the Mansfield Chronicle-Advertiser on Thursday, 13th January. He knows and has to work in this environment, and what he said sums up the situation:
The most disturbing factor about the present crisis is that miners generally are making no attempt to ensure the safety of those mines which need such measures in order to assure a continued life. Is it not because the miners are saying to themselves, 'If the nation does not want to give us a just reward for a hard and health sapping job, why should we bother about saving the mines'? This feeling is not union or politically inspired, and as yet has not reached coherent expression. But the danger is that unless the Government quickly appreciates this groundswell of hopelessness and bitterness, the industry will be in ruins. What the Government must decide is how much value is the coal industry to the nation. If it is worth preserving, then it is worth subsidising.
He knows more about the feelings of the miners than the whole of Fleet Street put together.
In 1926, my area was shamefully exploited by the Government and the coal owners to break the miners' strike. If

I may put in a plug for my predecessor, I think that he is doing history a favour by writing his book and dealing fully with the history of Spencer which has so far not been completely covered. My predecessor was personally involved in this. My advice to the Minister is not to come looking for Spencer in Nottinghamshire to help him out, because he does not live there any more.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Stewart-Smith: I have the privilege to represent South Derbyshire, and the 20,000 people who live in and around Swadlingcote depend on coal. There are four pits, a research establishment at Bretby, a central workshops, and certain ancillary establishments. People in South Derbyshire have a tradition of moderation. In the ballot 62 per cent. voted against empowering the union's executive to call for strike action, but I reinforce the views of my hon. Friends when I say that there is now a feeling of bitterness among the men, and there is 100 per cent. support for this strike in what is a traditionally moderate area.
The miners there have a tradition of outstanding productivity. It is the highest in Europe. They have an extraordinary record of co-operation with the National Coal Board. There is very little absenteeism, and their safety record is excellent. They are an example to the rest of Britain. That came out during the recent fire at Cadley Hill when, during a holiday period, they gave total co-operation to the Board in blocking off the fire.
I should like to deal with a question asked of, but not answered by, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) about the origin of low miners' wages. It lies in decisions made by the Front Bench of the Labour Administration over six years. It started in July, 1966 with the prices and incomes policy. Almost every N.U.M. sponsored Member of the Labour Party went into the Division Lobby in support of that measure. There were only one or two honourable exceptions. In June, 1968, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) went through the Lobby in support of those measures.

Mr. Thomas Swain.: I did not.

Mr. Skinner: Nor I. I was doing another job at the time.

Mr. Stewart-Smith: No. I have looked up the records. Between October, 1964, and June, 1970, miners received £4 a week accumulated pay rises over those six years. But it was not only in wages that the Labour Party was no friend of the mining industry. Hon. Gentlemen opposite butchered the industry. In October, 1964, there were 540 pits. When the Conservatives took over in June, 1970, there were 293. In October, 1964, there were 505,000 miners. That figure had been reduced to 283,000 in June, 1970.
Curious intellectuals on the Front Bench of the Labour Party were bewitched by nuclear power, and they only half understood the technical mumbo-jumbo. They said that nuclear power was the thing of the future. But they were wrong. It has never done what it was supposed to do, and on this I must take issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The capital expenditure makes the mind boggle. Every forecast of the nuclear power programme has failed to work out. It has the lowest growth rate of all the power sources. Because of pit closures the Labour Party is responsible for keeping thousands of miners out of productive work.
In 1970 the Conservative party inherited that shambles, and the roaring inflation that was admitted—

Mr. Michael McGuire: The hon. Gentleman said something that warmed the cockles of my heart when he was referring to nuclear power, but I do not want him to go away with the wrong idea. It was the Conservative Party which put forward the panacea of nuclear power stations.

Mr. Stewart-Smith: Like the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I was doing another job at the time.
The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) has publicly admitted that roaring inflation was created for party political purposes. Devaluation and a wage freeze led to the low base line of miner's pay. After the Conservatives returned to power, in November, 1970, they gave the miners a

£3-a-week increase, which was the largest single increase in the history of the industry. In December, 1971, they were promised an additional £2 a week, and further increases under the national power loading parity. In 18 months of Conservative rule they have had more increases than they received during six years of Labour rule. In that respect the N.U.M. has backed the wrong horse.
I have always regarded the wages of miners as a national scandal. I remember being shaken and shocked when, as a candidate, I saw the pay slip of a surface worker who was earning £11 a week. I said that if ever the day came when I could do something about that I would, and I believe that today is the day.

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman join us in the Lobby tonight?

Mr. Stewart-Smith: One must have sympathy with these men. I do not know whether the public realise that every week, on average, between one and two miners are killed, and others are wounded and maimed. They work in conditions of damp and wet. They spend one-third of their lives underground. They have to compete with gas, fires, pneumoconiosis, bronchitis, and all the other hazards. They have a quiet courage which they do not trumpet around, but it is courage which enables them to follow this dangerous way of life every day.
The minimum wage before the strike was not a living wage. In that I support the miners entirely, and I believe, too, that the increased offer made by the Government and the Board is still not a living wage. It is inaccurate to talk about percentage increases being adequate, because the base line was so low.
I have profound sympathy for the miners in this situation. I believe that they have a strong case and that they have suffered an injustice. They are the finest group of men it has been my privilege to be associated with. Their holidays are far too short, there working life is too long, and their pensions are an even greater scandal.
I praise the miners' extraordinary record of co-operation, their absence of restrictive practices, their preparedness to change their working procedures, their


very low strike record since the war, and the way in which they have increased their productivity over the years. Their preparedness to change with the times should be rewarded and encouraged.
In our election campaign we promised that we would work for a high-wage, low-cost economy. We had better bring that about. I cannot think of any body of men who deserve this more than the lower-paid miners. The miners' position in the industrial wages chart has fallen. As has already been brought out so vividly, the purchasing power of their wages has fallen.
I was deeply aware of the miners' anger on this point. On 17th November I specifically wrote to the Chairman of the National Coal Board stating:
The lower paid miner and his family are in a desperate plight.
I recommended that the 7 per cent. offer be increased to 10 per cent.; because I realised that, if there were not a substantial increase in pay, the miners would head straight for a strike. I wrote:
The miners have it within their power to inflict terrible damage to the national economy and so cause suffering to the entire people of this nation.
I warned the Chairman that if the Board refused to increase its offer
a disastrous situation could arise
and that is exactly what has happened.
My warning, for what it was worth, was not taken. The nationwide backing and support for the overtime ban was ignored by the Board and by the Government. By refusing to make adequate concessions the Board seriously miscalculated the extent of the miners' anger and bitterness. The Board also misunderstood the extraordinary solidarity in the industry, which one can only admire. The only way of winning the miners' confidence was to give an increase in pay in advance of increases in productivity. I accept the Board's point that productivity has been falling.
On the other hand, by refusing to accept the Board's final offer the National Executive of the National Union of Mineworkers similarly made a misjudgment about the Government's determination to bring such pressure as they can to bear on the Board to curb inflation. If anyone on the National Executive gets himself

into a frame of mind of "47 per cent. or bust", it will be "bust". I believe that the Government's intentions in this matter are crystal clear.
I do not believe that the miners will win concessions by strike action. The way in which they can get concessions is by arbitration. I will do everything in my power to encourage the Government to try to secure arbitration, and I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that he will use his influence to get an arbitration going.
It is self-evident that ultimately higher wages are paid from the selling price of coal. Every week £10 million worth of coal sales is being lost, and every day £1·15 million is being lost in wages. I want higher wages to be paid from increased sales of coal, and I want the industry to cash in on the export potential that lies ahead if we can gain access to the future energy requirements of Western Europe. To do that we shall need a thriving mining industry.
I am appalled and saddened that industrial relations in the industry have become so soured and embittered, a situation which is manifested by the miners' refusal to co-operate in taking safety precautions. The vital co-operation necessary to get the industry going again will be more difficult to secure.
If the strike drifts on, skilled men will leave the industry for better jobs and will not return. There are many skilled engineers, for example, in the industry.

Mr. Skinner: Where are the jobs, say, in Belper?

Mr. Stewart-Smith: The miners can obtain other jobs in my area. Customers will switch to other fuels. Coal will get a bad name because of its unreliability. The geological forces which have been referred to will play havoc in the mines. Vital development work will be held up. Cadley, for example, must either develop or close—and 800 jobs are in jeopardy there. The result of all this will be more pit closures and more miners unemployed.
I look with especial sympathy of the plight of the elderly miners, who find it so difficult to get other jobs. I also have in mind the fact that many of these mines are in development areas.
Because of the rather inept management by the Board and because of the


union's attitude, there has been a breakdown in confidence and communication between the two bodies. I beseech the union leaders to make everything they can of the magnificent action by the T.U.C. General Secretary to get talks going. I hope, too, that the National Executive of the National Union of Mineworkers will reconsider its attitude to arbitration. I recommend that the National Executive puts the whole matter into the hands of a National Reference Tribunal in an effort to resolve deadlock by a procedure which the National Coal Board and the union have previously agreed, or, if the union does not like that suggestion, to put the whole matter into the hands of a completely independent court of inquiry.
If this is not done, if the unions continue not to be prepared to go to arbitration, and if abuse of pickets is allowed to continue, there will be a backlash of public opinion. The real reason I want this matter to go to arbitration is that I am certain that the award from the arbitration would be much higher than the Government's level. This, I believe, is the way to help the miners.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I want first to declare an interest. I am an ex-miner and a member of the National Union of Mineworkers. As an ex-officio member of the National Executive of that union I have been privileged—though it has not been much of a pleasure—to sit through and listen to the discussions with the Coal Board which have taken place about this claim. I have no intention of going through the whole episode. I say simply that there has been little negotiation. The Board's attitude has been, "This is our offer. If you do not accept it, the responsibility lies with you". The Board has not been prepared to negotiate any changes in its offer.
The Secretary of State's speech was very unfortunate in these grave circumstances. Knowing what he would say later in his speech, he would have been far better advised not to have uttered his first few sentences when he heaped lavish praise on the miners and expressed adulation for the very people that he later castigated and condemned.
There were many points in the speech of the hon. Member for Belper (Mr.

Stewart-Smith) with which I agreed and many more with which I disagreed.
The Union's claim was first put to the Board on 14th September last. The strike commenced 16 weeks later on 9th January, 1972. No one will attempt to argue that there has not been a considerable period in which discussions should have taken place effectively and realistically, but it did not happen. Only when it was clear that the Board had made its "final, final offer", to quote the language of the Chairman of the Board, was the union forced to take this last inevitable step. So, for the first time since 1926, the miners are out on an official national strike. It is a strike that no one in the industry wanted, but one that both the union and its members saw as the only way out in their struggle for a decent living wage for vast numbers within the industry.
Why was that decision taken? What has prompted the union, with a record of co-operation second to none since nationalisation, co-operation praised by hon. Members on both sides today, to take this final step? It is because miners believe that despite all their efforts for good industrial relations within the industry they are far worse off now in relation to other manual workers than they were in 1947, when it all started. At the time of nationalisation the miner was on top of the national wages league. Today he is sixteenth. There has been a major reduction in the relative earning position of the miners in recent years, a deterioration so great that pay increases of over £5 a week would be needed to restore their position of even four years ago.
There are thousands of shorthand typists in London and other parts of the country with a bigger take-home wage packet than many miners who work a full week underground. Miners are beginning to ask whether they are worth far less than workers in the car industry. They have co-operated in the massive programme of pit closures over the years, under which 777 mines have been closed since 1947 and manpower has been reduced from 700,000 then to 290,000 today. That is not only a loss in manpower but a loss of jobs in mining areas which is of far more significance to those who live there now. Despite the great efforts of the miners in increasing output over those years, they find that their


wages have not advanced in a manner that would have kept them near the top of the league table. They now realise that their wages are too low because they have been too loyal, too responsible and too ready to put the interests of the Coal Board and the nation first for far too long. They realise, too, that in their industry minimum wages normally become maximum wages, with no overtime and no piece rates for the vast majority who work in it.
I should like to refer to the memorandum sent out by the Board to all hon. Members, dealing first with the five extra individual holidays in the next holiday year starting on 1st May, three to be taken before 1st November and the other two later. That means that the Board wanted to make a better offer, but was denied the right to do so by the Government, and it thought that that was a way to get the union and its members to accept the offer. But the fact of the matter is that the union already had a claim in for a third week's holiday. That has not been granted. When members of the union's national executive asked the Board's Chairman, "Why can't you compute the amount it would have cost you for this extra week's holiday and transfer it Into a weekly wage?", the reply was, "It would not cost us anything". So why in the name of God has the Board refused to give the third week for so long? It was absolute deceit, and the Board knew it as well as we did.
On the weekly minimum wage, the Board says that if the miners were to accept its offer we should go up to sixth in the table, level with the dockers. It does not say that this is the first round of wage awards in this year and that in no time others will be on top of us again. That is no answer either, and the Board knows it.
The Board also says, and gives the game away, that in the week ending 9th October, 1971,
… a typical week before the overtime ban started …
Of course it was a typical week before the overtime ban started, because the Board dares not produce the figures for the period after the ban started. It is estimated that there is 20 per cent. overtime per week to bring the rates up to where the Board says they are now.
As to the take-home pay of surface workers on minimum rates, in negotiations on wages issues over the years the Board has always argued that it could not give a larger increase because the money is not in the till. There was some justification in its argument on many occasions, but now its attitude has changed. Its argument now is to imply that the proposed increases mean that the take-home pay will rise from £16.42 to £17.74 for a married mineworker with two children and from £14.69 to £16.01 for a married mineworker with no children and that those are reasonable wages. The Board has changed its ground completely.
I have news for the Board, if it does not know it already—the miners no longer accept that view. They say, "Although we have accepted pit closures and all their social consequences in mining areas; although we have listened to the Board's argument that putting up the price of coal will lose us customers in the long run; at the end of the day, although we have been loyal and responsible, we have received the worst of the argument". They say that they are not prepared to tolerate that situation any longer.
I have never seen the miners back in the valleys that I go to so often more hard and bitter than they are today. They have lost faith in the Board and in the Government. They have seen in the Board's refusal to award a bigger increase the Government's insistence that wage increases in the public sector should not be above 7½ to 8 per cent., and the instruction to the Board that it cannot raise its prices beyond 5 per cent. They say, too, that this really means that the miners are being compelled to finance the Government's subsidy to private industry in the form of cheap coal supplies. Throughout the years private industry has done reasonably well out of this. As the Sunday Times said recently:
Interest rates are low, money freely available—and profits are on the way up, if not for those 1971 accounts then for recovery this year.
Who, then, can blame Britain's miners for thinking it is about time they made a bit of hay as well?
I should like to say something about the statement by the Chairman of the Board immediately the offer was rejected


on 5th January. The statement that that offer was withdrawn once the strike began caused embittered miners to become very angry. It has been the main cause of much of the difficulty encountered in some parts of the coalfield on the question of safety work, which shows the real depth of feeling of the men. I appeal to the men in the coalfields to respond to the N.E.C.'s considered recommendation in this regard.
The question of a reference to the National Reference Tribunal has been raised several times in the debate, and the Board raised it immediately its final offer was rejected as an alternative. Until 1961 the reference was automatic, but then at the union's request that arrangement was changed, so that if either side objects or decides not to pursue a claim it does not automatically go to the tribunal. Does anyone think that the union asked to change the system without reason? It was done because the union had been to the tribunal on many occasions and the awards were not satisfactory. Therefore, the union said, "We want the right to determine the question. Reference must not be automatic in the future, because we are not happy that we are having the awards to which we are entitled." There were 36 awards, and hardly one was on a major wage issue.
It is very evident now that whatever is to be the size of the industry in the immediate future it will have to be an industry in which those working in it receive just and adequate rewards. Mining is still an unpleasant and dangerous job. Indeed, each piece of elaborate electrical machinery installed by the Board increases its potential dangers. The miners say that if the nation needs the coal it must be prepared to pay the price required to give those who mine it a decent wage that will enable them and their families to live with dignity.
The strike is now just over a week old. The Coal Board's hands are obviously tied by Government policy. The strike is already costing the miners, the Board, and the nation a great deal of money and hardship. The danger that expensive machinery will be lost increases day by day, as does the possibility of forcing closure on some of the existing collieries. All the miners realise that, but they are

determined to fight on, because there is no choice if they are to receive what they consider to be a fair wage.
I was very pleased to read on the tapes today that the General Secretary of the T.U.C. is calling both sides together for a talk tomorrow morning. I hope that something will result from that, but it does not relieve the Government of their responsibility. The answer lies with them. I say to them, "Release the shackles that bind the N.C.B. to policies determined by you. Instruct it to renew immediately negotiations with the union, free and unfettered by interference from anyone, on the basis of discussing the merits of the claim in a reasonable and sensible manner". Only in that way will there be any possibility of an early and peaceful settlement and an end to a conflict that no one within the industry wants and that is bound to be catastrophic in its effect upon us all.
I urge the Minister to act at once before the damage becomes too serious and too great to be repaired.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Anyone who knows the nature of the miner's work, and the circumstances in which he performs it, can have no doubt that he is grossly underpaid. If payment were based on the nature of the work done, the miner would be paid much more than he is now. Unfortunately, such considerations do not often enter into the matter. It is a question of the miner's economic value in the community, which is a matter of great regret to me, because I believe that the social element should enter into it.
The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), in a remarkable and heartfelt speech, posed the real question which should be debated by this House and which is being debated in the country. Do we want a coal industry? That is really the question. If we want a coal industry, are we prepared to pay for it? If we are prepared to pay for it, to what extent are we prepared to pay for it?
This debate comes at a time of great crisis for all those closely knit social communities which form the mining areas of this country. They were the source of our energy and wealth in the 19th and 20th centuries. The wealth of this


country which started with the Industrial Revolution was largely based on the sweat of those miners' brows. The future for miners and for the country is very serious indeed. Not only can a strike of this kind cause great bitterness, but, if the strike were to be prolonged, the mining community could be so reduced in size that we might find ourselves with a much smaller industry when on maturer reflection we would prefer to have a larger one.
Although I appreciate the Government's attitude towards prices and wages, I had hoped to see signs of compassion and understanding in the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he opened the debate. I am not accusing him of not having any compassion, but he certainly did not show any, and neither did he demonstrate any real understanding of the situation of the miners, who are the victims of circumstances. I do not come from a mining community but I have had a good deal to do with miners from time to time when I have appeared in cases either for the mining unions or for the Coal Board. I have been down a number of pits in different parts of the country and I have seen the mining community at close quarters. The miners are on the horns of a dilemma which, if I were a miner, I would not know how to resolve.
For 46 years the miners have not struck on a national scale. This is remarkable when one considers the nature of their work, the conditions in which they do it and the vicissitudes which their industry has undergone.
The mining industry has suffered under all Governments from the lack of consistent fuel policy. A background factor to this debate is that we have now at our disposal vast resources of oil and natural gas in the North Sea on a scale undreamt of a year ago. The finds are very much greater than were expected. Nevertheless, the miner who looks back at his record of loyalty and co-operation with the Coal Board, at the reduction of the labour force to only one-third and the closure of many pits has seen the havoc this has caused on his place in the community and when he sees wages in other spheres bounding up he wonders, "Was I right to have been such a tame chap after all?

Why cannot we try the other way? "This is really the deep psychosis which is affecting the mining community, and this House, whatever attitude it takes, would do well to show sympathy and understanding of this situation.
It will be difficult for the miners to win this strike—

Mr. Adam Hunter: No.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member says "No", but I think it will be difficult because the economic hand is more with the Government than with the Coal Board, and this is where one therefore expects the Government to show a much greater appreciation of the problem. There has been no constructive approach by the Government; simply a negative one. There has been no study of a fuel policy and certainly no pronouncement by the Government. For example, is it in our interests as a nation to keep alive an indigenous national industry such as the coal industry?
The East Midlands coalfield has been referred to. In that area there are rich newly developed seams which are readily mined by the newest methods and where the production per shift of a miner is very high. A production bonus such as the Coal Board has offered when it is spread over the board does not make any sense. In the East Midlands it may be possible to increase shift production by perhaps a ton or two even if a great deal is produced now, whereas in South Wales and Scotland where the seams are much more difficult such a production bonus does not make sense.
This rough, unsympathetic approach is entirely wrong. I can see a very bitter situation developing, with the lines getting harder, unless the Government intervene and intervene sensibly in a spirit of compassion. We could have an embittered mining community on our hands for many years, and this country owes a great deal to the mining community. The Government should intervene. There is a great deal to be said for ensuring that the National Coal Board makes a far more generous offer on the basic rates, leaving the production bonus out of it. If there are to be production bonuses let them be in localities where the local situation may be borne in mind.
The Government have only themselves to blame for this situation. They started off governing the country by virtually inviting a return to the laws of the jungle in economics, and inviting the strongest to win, virtually having everything decided on economic criteria alone. The wages in those sectors of private industry which took early advantage of this galloped away in comparison, for example, with those in the mining industry. The Government's slow conversion to the idea of a prices and incomes policy has been altogether too arbitrary. Therefore, there is a sense of injustice.
In these circumstances, whereas I think that a strike is highly unlikely to benefit the mining industry and the miners are unlikely to come out of it well, I have tremendous sympathy for the miners and I can understand why they have done it, but there is an overwhelming duty on the Government to take active steps to see that the situation does not get out of hand.

6.53 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that it would be difficult for the miners to win this strike. I add that it will be impossible for any party to win this strike. The miners will lose, the National Coal Board will lose and the Government will lose, most of all in economic terms.
It was a tenet of the economic and financial policy of the previous Government between 1964 and 1970, as of this Government, that the nationalised industries should show a reasonable and commercial return on the net capital vested. Nobody has mentioned that yet in this debate. I draw attention to it now because it is imperative that the nationalised industries, including the National Coal Board, should operate on strictly commercial lines. The National Coal Board is not a social welfare service. It has a statutory and commercial duty to pay its way taking year with year. Therefore, if this large claim by the coal miners is to be met, namely an increase variously estimated between 35 per cent. and 47 per cent., costing the National Coal Board about £30 million annually that money can be found in only one of two ways—either by putting up the price of coal or by the Government giving a subsidy of £30 million to the Coal Board.
I will deal first with the second of those recourses, namely, the subsidy proposition, which has come from two quarters. It came first from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), though covertly and surreptitiously. He wrapped it up by saying that the Government should lift off the shoulders of the Coal Board the whole of the interest charge in respect of capital. It came again from the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who said quite directly—there was nothing covert or surreptitious about his statement—that the Government should give the Board a subsidy.
If a subsidy is given by the Government, all commercial standards of operation will disappear at once. It would be impossible to give a subsidy to the Board while at the same time demanding that the Board should operate to commercial standards and show a return on the net capital vested. These two propositions are mutually and grossly incompatible. In any event, my hon. Friends and I would not support the granting of a subsidy in any circumstances to this nationalised industry. It must pay its way, taking year with year, on strictly commercial terms.
Already we have shouldered, as a result of the misdemeanours of an earlier Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, a form of protection for the coal industry in that fuel oil is heavily taxed which prevents fair competition between the two types of fuel, coal and oil. We carry on with that system, notwithstanding that nearly all the present Ministers have spoken against it in recent years, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who always shared my views in that respect. I wish, now that he is on the Treasury Bench, that he would implement some of his earlier promise in this regard. I see his blushes and I feel sorry for him. We are already subsidising the coal industry in this fashion by heavily taxing fuel oil.

Mr. Fred Evans: rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: I am not giving way to anybody on either side. I promised you, Mr. Speaker, that I would take only 15 minutes so as to allow hon. Members representing mining constituencies to speak. They can answer my arguments


later, although they will find my arguments difficult to refute, if not impeccable, as always in this context.
The second recourse would be for the Coal Board to put up its prices by an amount which would yield an added revenue of £30 million to offset the amount of the wage award. But the market would not yield £30 million today in additional prices. Customers for coal, industrial, commercial and private, were disappearing week by week long before the strike took place. They are going over to oil because oil is cleaner, more efficient and cheaper than the constantly inflated prices charged by the National Coal Board.
The Coal Board, like every other business, depends on the good will of its customers. I have loyally stuck by coal in my own household year after year although it is uneconomic for me to do so. As a result of the last round of increases this summer, I have finally abandoned coal. I will tell the House why. I phoned my coal merchant this afternoon and said, "How much per ton for Phurnacite"—a National Coal Board product—"for cooking in my household?" The answer astonished even me—" £28.60 a ton delivered in Broadway, Worcestershire." It has gone up by several pounds a ton in the last 12 months.
I can cook with oil considerably more cheaply than I can with coal. The answer to this in simple terms that all will understand is that the Coal Board is progressively pricing itself out of the market here and abroad, and if the price of coal were to be put up further to meet this extravagant—I repeat, in case hon. Members opposite did not hear me—this extravagant wage claim by the miners—then the markets for coal would shrink even faster than they have been recently. The Government are right to oppose the granting of this huge wage demand. It is in my opinion entirely wrong to grant anything more than a 7·9 per cent. increase, which is what the Coal Board has offered, because the miners had a 12 per cent. increase in wages last year.
Another 7·9 per cent. would give them almost 20 per cent. over two years, little of which could be found out of increased prices because the products of the indus-

try would be rendered totally uncompetitive. No part of that sum should be forthcoming—I shall be the first to protest if the Government relent or weaken in this important respect—by granting a subsidy. Mr. Ezra, the Chairman of the Coal Board, understands these matters perfectly. He was questioned thus in the Sunday Times last week:
Your problem is that if you put up the price of coal to increase income, sales will drop?
Mr. Ezra replied:
That has been a key factor in our present negotiations. Last year we made the biggest ever wage settlement, 12½ per cent. and because of this and increased fixed costs, the price of coal went up by 20 per cent. Anything other than a marginal increase now would be self-defeating.
He was then asked:
You have agreed that miners deserve better pay—would a solution not be a massive Government subsidy?
Mr. Ezra's reply was:
That is quite outside our terms of reference. I think once a Government allows an industry to get on the slippery slope of massive subsidisation the time will come when the Government will say 'enough is enough' and close the pits down.
They are the words of Mr. Derek Ezra and in this context they are unexceptionable.
I turn to a further significant matter to which no hon. Member opposite representing a coal mining constituency has so far alluded. The fact is that output of coal has now shrunk to 143 million tons based on 1970–71—

Mr. Swain: On Government directive. Tell them that.

Sir G. Nabarro: This figure has been as a result of the policies of successive Governments.

Mr. Swain: It has not shrunk; it has been squeezed.

Sir G. Nabarro: It might have been squeezed, but it has shrunk or been squeezed. Out of that 143 million tons, 73 million tons or about one-half is consumed by electricity generating stations. If any large increase in wages is conceded in response to the demands of the miners then at least one-half of such increase will go on the price of electricity thus inflating the costs of the whole of British manufacturing industry and be highly damaging. Electricity has not


fallen in price in recent years despite enormous generation investment. The onset of nuclear power and improved methods of generation such as the higher load factor of power stations, be they base power stations or general utility power stations, and improvement in thermal efficiency for burning coal at power stations, yet still the price of electricity has not declined—because of the large annual increases in the price of coal, which accounts for three-quarters of fuel costs in the electricity supply industry. For all these reasons I say to the Government that I hope there will be no relenting in the treatment of this excessive wage demand by the coal miners. The award of 12½ per cent. last year was a handsome one, far more than any other industrial worker received.

Mr. Adam Hunter: It was 12½ per cent. of what?

Sir G. Nabarro: Far larger than any other industrial worker received. With the 7·9 per cent. to come, that would be 20 per cent. in all over two years which would compound the felony.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Tell us about wages.

Sir G. Nabarro: I could go on for an hour about wages quite easily, but I have said, Mr. Speaker, that I would not take longer than 15 minutes.
Finally, I give the Government this perfectly candid warning. Last year hon. Members were tortured by the Whips, marching through the Lobby hundreds of times on the Industrial Relations Bill to prevent the kind of calamitous miners' stoppage that we have now. Why is it that the formulae and provisions of the Industrial Relations Act cannot be applied in this first major stoppage since the Act reached the Statute Book? Unless the Government act within the framework of the Industrial Relations Act to secure a settlement, I am afraid that Act will be stigmatised as an expensive and irrelevant stumer.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Swain: This is the first time in the 12½ years that I have been in this House that I have not intervened while the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has been speaking. I will

deal with the price of coal in human terms, but first I want to mention briefly the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith). I will welcome him in our Lobby tonight because a few weeks ago he was reported very faithfully in the Burton Daily Mail as saying in his constituency that he supported the claim of the miners. I leave it at that and ask him to support that statement. His actions will speak louder than his words.
I do not intend to deal with the pounds, shillings and pence of the price of coal. When we raised the flag of nationalisation in 1947 I stood at the bottom of the headstocks at Markham No. 2 pit, one of the proudest men in Great Britain because I thought that we had achieved something which would become the greatest milestone in the mining industry. How wrong I have been proved, particularly since 8th June, 1970. First of all the miners were given the five-day week but, following an appeal from the then Government, the miners immediately went without that five-day week and decided to work weekends to produce coal.
They were also given a fortnight's holiday with pay. The first thing they did was to forfeit one week's holiday with pay to produce another week's coal. These are the first sacrifices the National Union of Mineworkers made after nationalisation and it did not make them in its own interests but in the interests of the nation to provide a cheap source of fuel for industry to get the country back on its feet. This was one of the first prices we paid. We also accepted a voluntary six-month wage restraint to enable the country to get over its economic troubles and to give the National Coal Board a reasonable start in its efforts to reconstruct what was then an obsolete industry which had had the guts taken out of it by private enterprise.
Let us look at the price that is paid in human terms. Here I must declare an interest. I have three sons-in-law and one son working at the pit. My father was killed in the pit, so it can be seen that I have a specific interest. I myself worked for 34 years down the pit and I still live in the house which I occupied when I was a miner. Therefore, unlike the hon. Member for Worcestershire,


South, I always declare my interest in every debate in which I take part.

Sir G. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Swain: Sit down—I am not giving way. In human terms the facts are as follows. In 1972, 92 men were killed in the coal mines of Great Britain—nearly two a week; since 1947 6,500 men have lost their lives underground in the coal mines. This is the story in human terms. This is the other side of the picture when one considers the price of coal. No economist in the world can measure the price of coal in money terms without bearing in mind the human terms in loss of life.
Since 1947 some 40,000 men have been maimed for life—permanently injured This is the price of working in a coal mine. Nobody can measure the human suffering in monetary terms, and I hope to God that we shall never do so—although the mood of the Conservative Party at present seems to be that pounds, shillings and pence are the controlling force in every respect.
Let us take the situation about pneumoconiosis. About 860 men have lost their lives since 1947 as a result of this disease. At present 48,000 ex-miners are drawing part disability pension, and 20 per cent. of them are disabled as a result of pneumoconiosis. Can the Secretary of State measure this in human terms after his silly, idiotic, Ezra-like speech this afternoon? I am not surprised that he made such an idiotic speech, because he is completely identified with Conservative philosophy. What can we, as miners and working people, expect from Ministers whose philosophy is, if not to kill, to maim the economics of the mining industry?
The Medical Officer of the National Coal Board who is an authority on this matter said this:
Men in their early 20s are now contracting pneumoconiosis because of the sophisticated machinery that is being used in the coal mines. The increase in mechanisation from day to day is producing more dust.
As a consequence, it has become a young man's industry. Men in their early thirties will be complete physical wrecks by the time they are 40 and they will be unable to earn wages even at the levels mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman today

—and those levels are meagre enough. Will their aims be defeated by pneumoconiosis, the scourge of the mining industry? Can one measure a ton of coal in economic terms if one also takes into account the human suffering that is caused by every ton of coal that comes up the mine shaft?
Mining today is a highly skilled industry. I can remember the year 1926 when I was on strike and when we had no sophisticated machinery at all. The only sophisticated machinery we then had was the pick and shovel, and that was sophisticated because one had to have muscles as big as a horse to use them. But today the use of modern machinery demands dedicated training up to a degree of skill that was unknown in former times. We are proud to have some of the highest skilled mechanics in Great Britain to maintain our mining machinery. The only thing Mr. Ezra is squealing about at the moment is the question of the sophisticated machinery. Every time the yellow lines on the hydraulic props move a millionth of an inch, the greater the danger becomes; every movement of the walking chock and roof control driven by hydraulic power causes him concern. That is what is worrying Derek Ezra.
I would say to Derek Ezra—who is the highest paid apprentice in the mining industry—that he wants to do his homework before sending out the sort of letter he sent to Members of Parliament. I have sent back my copy of the letter without a stamp on it, because I think I know enough about the mining industry without any directions from Derek Ezra. Have we forgotten the co-operation that was given by the men in the mining industry? It should be remembered that in 1957 there were 580,000 men in the industry and in 1972 the figure is now only 284,000. We have lost some 200,000 men from the industry, and there has not been one major stoppage, because the unions, the men they represent and the Board have worked together.
In 1967, I and my hon. Friends in the mining group moved 47 Amendments to the Coal Industry Bill, and we still contend that if only a dozen of them had been accepted the whole philosophy of the industry would have been considerably altered. But my right hon. Friend who was then the Minister of Power, and who has now had a 90 per cent. increase


granted to him as Chairman of British Railways, refused to accept one Amendment which would have fundamentally altered the industry at that time.
Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government will look ahead rather than keep looking over their shoulder. Many of the miners in my constituency—and I know that this applies to miners in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and Chesterfield (Mr. Varley)—have worked in at least five pits in six and a halt years. Each time they have moved they have been told that they will be working in a long-life pit and yet, within 12 months, they have been given notice that the pit is in jeopardy and about to close. This is the tragedy of the situation. Geordies and Scots have been sent down to Derbyshire because that was to be a long-life area. Yet 11 years ago there were some 22 more pits in existence than is the case today. What this Government and the Coal Board have done is to turn many of those engaged in the industry into industrial gipsies. They are floating about from pit to pit, dependent on the charity of the Coal Board and the Government as to whether they will work in a pit for 12 months or 12 years—[Interruption.] I have spoken for 11½ minutes. I have timed myself carefully—

Sir G. Nabarro: I make it 14.

Mr. Swain: The hon. Gentleman cannot tell the time.
The Government can take immediate action by relieving the Coal Board of the £33·6 million interest that it is paying. They have done it in other industries. They can do it for the mining industry. They have done it for private industries. They can do it for the mining industry. If the Government cancelled the industry's capital debt, it could become viable and could afford to pay its wages. The Government are deliberately keeping on these interest charges so that there will be no kitty available from which to pay justifiable wage increases. I hope very soon that the Government will take action along the lines that I suggest.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: We cannot complain that we have not been advised closely about the difficulties facing the coal industry. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr.

Swain) especially, although showing a certain bitterness towards some of my colleagues, has demonstrated his great feeling and sympathy for the men on whose behalf he speaks with such wide experience and knowledge.
The Government are helped considerably by the controlled emotion which has been expressed. I hope that they will also be helped by the sense of sympathy which has been shown from hon. Members in all parts of the House. In the course of the debate, there has been a balance between economics and economic reality and just and fair rewards for those who work in this major industry in our economy.
Before coming into the Chamber today, I was delayed by some 30 miners and their wives from the Kent coalfield who had come to lobby me. Over the weekend, I made a point of going out into the Kent coalfield to meet other miners, many of whom I count as my personal friends.
Quite by chance, I was speaking last night about today's debate to a man who told me that formerly, in what might be termed the bad old days, he was a colliery owner. He said that miners were the most wonderful men that he had ever known. He said, too, that one of their greatest characteristics was their loyalty to their union. What we see today is a demonstration of that loyalty, and it has grown stronger since the strike first began.
As I see it, the miners feel that theirs is a neglected industry and that they are no longer the favoured sons of industry. I agree that there is a growing feeling of hopelessness among them. The miners to whom I have spoken conveyed this to me vividly when they said, almost in terms of Greek tragedy, that they did not care how long the strike lasted and how much they suffered. They told me that they did not want to continue working in an industry which was not properly respected and regarded by this House and the country at large.
That is not in their real nature. These men are loyal not only to their union but to their community. By the fact that they have not had an official strike for 46 years, they have been loyal in their service to the country. However, today they feel that they must stake their


claim to what they believe to be their proper reward.
They are concerned, too, about the Government's approach to the coal industry and its future. By that, I mean not only the approach of the present Government. Miners have been concerned about the approach of Governments to the industry for a long time. The industry has been going through a great contraction which has produced tremendous convulsions. It has sustained itself and its morale in a remarkable way. That has been possible only because of the willingness of those engaged in the industry to work with the management. Over the years, I have been amazed that we have not had a result like this before now.
The strike is a great pity. From the miners' point of view the timing economically may seem right. In reality, the timing is cruel. The miners have decided to strike in mid-winter, just when the economy is getting right again—

Mr. Skinner: We have heard that for a long time.

Mr. Crouch: People will suffer if the strike lasts a long time. Industry will be hit. Coal mining is a basic industry, and it will hit industry right across the board—

Mr. Skinner: Of course it will.

Mr. Crouch: It is a great tragedy that it should happen and, if we are concerned about co-operation between management and workers—

Mr. Skinner: That is dead. Collaboration is finished.

Mr. Crouch: I am afraid that in expressing my sympathy for the miners, I shall not be joined by the mass of the people as the strike progresses. There will be no sympathy where I believe sympathy to be due for relatively lowly paid men.
I do not believe that there is a case today for strike action, although I can understand how it has been precipitated. I believe, rather, that there is a stronger case for negotiation, for arbitration, or for a court of inquiry. I welcome the initiative of the T.U.C. in calling the two parties together. Equally, I should welcome the Government's conciliation machinery going into action when that

was considered appropriate and necessary. It is to be hoped that that time is not too far ahead, but I do not believe that it is yet necessary so long as we can see the management and the union getting together on their own. I hope that at ten o'clock tomorrow we shall see the beginning of an end to the impasse and a breaking out into more successful negotiations—

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman need not worry too much about that.

Mr. Crouch: All employers, whether in the nationalised industries or the private sector, come to the point where they have to say that they are making their final offer. They have a duty to be efficient, to be economic, and to make a profit. Consistently, this House has demanded that the nationalised industries do not become a charge on the taxpayer. Governments of both parties have demanded efficiency from our nationalised industries. We criticise them severely if they do not run themselves economically. We even consider appointing new chairmen if boards prove themselves to be inefficient in the eyes of Parliament and the people.
Today, however, the Coal Board has another requirement of its own choosing. It is in competition with the newer fuels in the shape of oil and nuclear power—

Mr. Swain: They are not nationalised.

Mr. Crouch: Many people believe that we gain too much coal uneconomically and that we should switch to the other fuels at a faster rate than that which is already planned and in operation. To my mind, however, it would mean a much-too-rapid rundown of the coal industry. It would mean men out of work and men retired early. It would mean the country having to face a great social as well as an economic problem. We cannot allow this type of change to take place at too fast a rate, and no Government have been prepared to see it happen.
The miners have been remarkably responsible over the years in the rundown and contraction of their industry. They have co-operated. They have been allowed to have a say about reductions and closures. They have had a technical say as well as making social and


economic observations about the factors involved. They have welcomed being asked their view. They have welcomed being invited by the management of the National Coal Board to look at the problems of individual pits to see whether they can increase productivity to make them viable and resist closure. They have welcomed this type of co-operation. This is management today, which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), when I first mentioned co-operation, seemed not to accept. The very essence of good management is co-operation between management and unions working in harmony.

Mr. Skinner: There has been collaboration and co-operation. We have been to arbitration. We have been doing that for the last 15 years. It resulted in pay increases of 10s., 6s. and 15s. It resulted in the miners falling from the top of the wage league to sixteenth place. If that is what collaboration and co-operation mean, the miners are not having it any more.

Mr. Crouch: I was referring to co-operation in the management, viability and economic success of the mines. I will return to what the hon. Gentleman has mentioned about the success or otherwise of the miners in their collaboration with management to achieve a fair reward.
I agree that the miners are more determined than ever after two weeks of this strike. They are facing it with the courage with which they face their dangerous and dirty work. They are not bloody-minded. They do not want to wreck the economy either. They are seeking a fair return and they think that they are not getting it.
I do not think that all the miners will go all the way with the active thinkers and talkers and leaders in the National Union of Mineworkers. They do not expect the earth, but they feel that they are neglected and forgotten. They think that they have been quiet for too long, so strike it is. And it will be a long and tough strike unless the Government and the National Coal Board take note of what has been said in this House and the serious view which we take of it. I believe that the miners are tragically wrong in their decision to strike at this

time in mid-winter. This is not an example of courage, but rather of foolhardiness. They cannot win; they can only lose.

Mr. Skinner: We will see about that.

Mr. Crouch: It makes me sad to think that they can only lose. I am not worried so much about the wage settlement which will be arranged eventually, but about their future, their jobs. Coal will become not only uneconomic but unreliable. If we expect the National Coal Board to be economic and to make a profit, it is possible that it will be forced to close many unprofitable pits and to concentrate only on the economic pits. It is also possible that it will be forced to raise prices and that, as a nation, we shall be forced to alter the balance of our fuel use in favour of oil and ultimately nuclear power. This is what the strike will produce. This is not what the miners want. In my opinion, they deserve a better deal. But, by using the strike weapon, they are in danger of committing suicide. Our duty today is to try to stop this terrible tragedy. The nation is not in a mood for strikes.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: The hon. Gentleman is criticising the miners for using the strike weapon, but they have not used the strike weapon for 25 years.

Mr. Swain: Officially, 46 years.

Mr. Crouch: I accept that they have not used the strike weapon officially for 46 years. However, they are still wrong to use it at this time because of what I have just been saying will be the real result: a quicker decline of the industry.

Mr. Fred Evans: Surely in what he is saying the hon. Gentleman is making the miners' point: that if their industry is to die, if it is to be threatened by oil and nuclear power—that is an arguable case —they are entitled to adopt the view that they prefer to die quickly rather than slowly. Is he telling them that they should withdraw all safety men from the collieries, that they should allow the pits to flood, and the mains to collapse? Will he give us the short-term answer, in terms of oil and nuclear power, to the paralysis of the steel and car industries, exports, and a possible 10 million unemployed?

Mr. Crouch: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's many questions in that rather long intervention. All I am seeking to show is that, whereas I have great sympathy for the miners and an understanding and feeling that they should get a fair reward, it is a tragedy that they have chosen to strike at this time because the mood in the country is not in favour of strikes. If there is understanding and sympathy in the country, it is for the miners' cause and case. But there is no longer an understanding and mood of sympathy for the strike weapon. Instead, there is an understanding for both sides of the industry to co-operate. This was what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was at such great pains to stress over the months of the introduction of the Industrial Relations Bill and its passing into an Act. He stressed that it was not so much an Act of Parliament as the beginning of a new era in industrial relations and understanding between management and employees.
Some have already asked: why should the miners be the whipping boys at this stage? Why should they be singled out for some restriction on their apparently just demands?
Should we accept entirely all the demands which the N.U.M. is making in order to maintain industrial peace and to prevent hardship across industry and to the people which a long strike will cause? I do not think that we can. I do not think that the whole demand of the N.U.M. is fully reasonable. To accept its demand in full would disrupt the economy and could spell ruin for the country for years to come just when things are looking up.
The Government are right to apply a policy of wage restraint by implication at this time. By "this time" I mean the time since this Government have been in power; not at this particular moment. It is vital that they stick to it. That, in my opinion, is responsible government. We have to ensure that the overall economic climate is right. We cannot allow another depression of runaway wage demands to ruin the fair weather which has begun to blow across our economy.

Mr. Swain: One million unemployed!

Mr. Crouch: Can nothing be done to deal with the problem in this great industry? This, to my mind, should never have become a matter for the Government, nor even a subject for debate in the House of Commons. It should not have got this far. It is a problem between employers and employees; it is for management and miners, for the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.
Why has it boiled over like this? Has management failed in some way? Has the Union failed to maintain the miners' pay over the years? It is a fair question. Has the N.U.M. failed its members in their right to a fair return for a hard week's work?

Mr. Skinner: I have already pointed out what happened. They collaborated.

Mr. Crouch: This is not a time for economists to pontificate on what we can or cannot afford. Let us for once forget percentages and consider people instead. I believe that it is a time for management to decide what is a just payment to men doing an essential and dangerous job in an industry providing an essential fuel in our economy.
Much has been written in the Press and published elsewhere about rates of pay and take-home pay, and the deductions and hidden benefits of miners. When I hear of men earning today less than the average industrial wage—that wonderful economic jargon which we hear so much and use so much as politicians, a figure around £26 a week—I ask myself the question, is it because it is a low wage industry or is it because that particular region of the country is paying lower wages than another area? I have here a pay slip for the first week of January, 1972, issued to a miner of Betteshanger Colliery. He is not a young man. He is older than I am. He is a married man and a surface worker. His gross pay is £18 a week and his deductions for tax and National Insurance are £3·40. His take-home pay is £14·60. He also has to pay £4·50 in rent for the council house in which he lives. I speak with feeling and sympathy. This is a man living today on barely more than £10 a week—10p more.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is


low, I have here a slip which gives a take-home pay of £12·80.

Mr. Crouch: I have spoken this afternoon to a married electrician, with no children, whose gross pay is £19·40. His take-home pay is £14 a week. I have spoken to a surface worker aged 18½ whose gross pay is £15 a week. His take-home pay is £11·30. Admittedly, he is only 18½. I have been told by many miners that their wives and daughters earn more than they do. I have met some young miners this afternoon who have told me that they are taking home less than £10.
The miners are responsible men and I believe that they are reasonable in presenting their case. I agree with what was said to me by that former colliery owner: "They are some of the best men I know and I count many of them as my friends." The question before us is whether this strike should have occurred and whether it could have been prevented. It is a strike which must hurt the miners, industry, our economy and the people. It should not have happened. It is a failure on the part of the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. I welcome what is to happen tomorrow. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) said, somewhere along the line someone has failed to identify with the miners. It is only by identifying with them that we can understand the reality of this strike. Only by identifying with them can we correct this tragedy and save this most important industry.

Mr. Skinner: Vote in our Lobby tonight.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: This is indeed a very important but sad occasion. It is important and sad not only for the mining community but also for the nation. I have listened to all the speeches and interventions today. I must come to one conclusion. That is that we as politicians, of all parties, have learnt nothing and made little progress over the last 46 years or so since the last miners' strike.
The real problem confronting the House and hon. Members on both sides is that the politicians are seemingly unable to solve a simple problem of industrial relations. This has been mentioned by my

right hon. Friend. There is a need for an incomes policy reasonably fair to all concerned. Linked with a proper fuel policy, that would have saved us from this terrible calamity of a miners' strike. Our counterparts in science and technology have overcome what seemed to be insurmountable problems over the last 50 years, but we as politicians have made little or no progress. Political thought and action by Members of Parliament on both sides have practically stood still and we have more or less gone to sleep. It is only on an occasion such as this that we have awakened and recognised the realities of the situation.
Today's events take me back 46 years when, at the age of 14, I was working in a foundry in High Bonnybridge. The call came from the miners and the trade union movement. There was no hesitation. All came out in support of the miners—the black-collar workers, not the white-collar workers. We knew that starvation could be the outcome and that revolution could have followed in the wake of the last general strike. Womenfolk in all the villages and towns associated with the mining community got together and started soup kitchens, to which we had to go for our meals.
Those were the practicalities of the time of the last strike. Ugly thoughts and actions started to grow in the minds of the strikers. I can well remember fish lorries from Aberdeen being overturned, and the sweetest piece of fish I ever ate seems to have come from one of those unfortunate experiences. But let us remember the mood that existed then in the country. Revolution was not far away. The strike was broken by troops, by the police and, not least, by the strike breakers from the universities and the professional classes. This left a bitterness in the hearts and minds of the mining communities that has been difficult to erase.
But today we live in a different age. While political attiudes have not moved the atmosphere and temper in the country have changed. I do not accept the analysis of the position made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). People of all walks of life realise that the mining community carries out the most difficult and dangerous task for working men to follow. As a nation we so much depend on the miners'


product, the coal that we use in many of our industries. Let us ask ourselves one question in this very important period of our development. Would any of us want our sons to become miners, when their wages are less than those of most of the other sons of toil throughout our land? The answer to that question is indeed in the negative. I have heard very few Members of Parliament suggesting that their sons should become miners.
This is a basic industry whose products we require as a nation. It has been our basic industrial strength for years past. We should well recognise that our industrial salvation and future may depend upon it. As responsible Members of Parliament, should we put the nation in pawn rather than give a reasonable income to the miners? Are we prepared to destroy our industrial future, as this could do? When I entered Parliament 12 years ago, production in the pits was roughly 25 cwt. per man-shift. Today, it is about 50 cwt. We must all agree that the miners do not receive their proper reward. Their wages have not increased in accordance with their productivity. Let me warn the Government that, if they do not take steps immediately to bring about an honourable settlement of this strike, the consequences could be extremely difficult to forecast.
Every hour that prolongs the strike, embitters the attitude of the men on strike. We are all well aware of an incident in recent history when a civil rights demonstration across the water escalated in a few months into bloody near-revolution, the solution of which we have not found yet.
If a general strike is called in a few weeks' time, I do not believe that the Armed Forces or the police will attack or undermine it. There is a different attitude abroad today. The university students are of a different calibre from those of 1926 and their attitude will not be as sympathetic to the powers-that-be if a general strike should come about. The trade union movement and the Labour Party are much stronger than when I was a boy in 1926. The professional and business classes include many people like myself, the sons of miners, who would not stand idly by and see the miners' families destroyed or crippled by a dogma

of 7 per cent., whatever Government sought to impose it. This is the challenge that the miners will take up. We who have sympathy with them and come from that background will not let them down.
I say tonight to the Prime Minister, "Here is an exceptional case which requires an exceptional remedy. The fire is started and you have an opportunity to put it out before it is too late". I appeal to the Prime Minister to depart from his previous practice of leaving the Minister in charge to deal with matters pertaining to his own Department. With all due respect to the Minister in question, who is a sincere and no doubt honourable man, he has misjudged his opportunity. These opportunities do not come twice in a man's life. Now is an opportune moment for the head of the Government to step in and make his presence felt. He must, or the consequences could be very dangerous indeed.
We do not seem to realise that this is is a dangerous situation, one which requires the Prime Minister's personal intervention. This is his greatest test. Great issues have been before the House—Ireland, Rhodesia, the Common Market and many more—but they will pale into insignificance beside the great problem of a general strike and the upheaval which that will bring about.
The Prime Minister has an opportunity to show courage, will-power and determination and recognise that, even if these men were at the top of the league table that we talk about, their standards would be far too low. They are the very life-blood of the nation, and they should get the best rewards of their labour.
Let the old slogan go forth—"a fair day's work for a fair day's pay." This is not being done at the moment. The miners have given the nation their lives in many instances. As I said, my father was a miner. They have toiled willingly and well, making no complaint of the dangers that beset them down in the bowels of the earth. They have been law-abiding citizens. Hon. Members opposite have complimented them on their integrity and their standards. Even the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry paid them a glowing compliment.
But a complimena is not sufficient. I say to the Government, "You are warned tonight, that unless this strike is brought


to an early close, the consequences the dangers and the responsibilities will be upon your shoulders and the outcome will be difficult to foretell."

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I have spoken in every coal debate since I became a Member of the House. This debate has in many ways followed the way of many of the other debates, It has been essentially a debate about the future of the industry and not about the particular problem.
I spent many years in the coal distributive business and this gave me an opportunity to get to know mining communities extremely well and also to see the switch from coal to oil. Hon. Members opposite have, correctly, expressed themselves emotionally—I am glad, incidentally, to see the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) back with us after his serious illness—but, at the end of the day, the question has to be regarded with a certain amount of business sense.
Hon. Members have talked about a national fuel policy. We have had a national policy, but the problem with such policies is that they are subject to real change quite unexpectedly. I am not convinced that merely to provide a blueprint for energy demand is likely to prove a solution to the problems either of the mining industry or of any other energy industry. The only criterion in the production of energy is the ability to sell the product competitively against the other energy products.
Therefore, what we must realise is that this debate is about one energy industry in a four-fuel economy—and an economy which is now made up of varying new fuels, some of which are dramatically improving their productivity and their suitability for industrial use. Who would have given the gas industry much of a future 10 years ago? So we must look at the coal industry against the backcloth of gas, oil, nuclear power and coal.
It is true that 75 per cent. of our electricity is generated with coal to fire the boilers, but in the last year alone the use of oil in generating stations has risen by about 20 per cent. and the figure for coal has fallen by 7 per cent.
I am among the first to share the view expressed by many hon. Members that

it is unarguable that the miners should receive more pay. As a society, we must realise ultimately that those who do the dirty jobs must be rewarded. However, this does not alter the fact that we must ask ourselves from where the money is to come to give them that extra pay, and in my view there are essentially three ways to provide the extra money.
The first is to put up the price of coal. It was estimated earlier today that an increase of about 15 per cent. would be necessary to meet the demands that the miners are making.

Mr. Harold Lever: Oh dear!

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman may question the accuracy of this estimate—

Mr. Harold Lever: There is more to it than that. Must the hon. Gentleman repeat the folly of the Minister by parroting what the cost would be if every claim of the miners was met? Nobody is suggesting that there should be an unconditional surrender by the Government to the miners. The only question is whether the miners should be called on to make an unconditional surrender to the Government.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I did not wish to provoke such a violent reaction from the right hon. Gentleman. I was merely referring to a point that had been made earlier. The fact remains that if the miners are given an increase the price of coal will be altered in some respect.
The second way to provide this money would be by subsidising the industry in one way or another. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) suggested a write-off of capital debt, and that would be one way of doing it. After all, it was done for the steel industry a week or so ago. In any event, the coal industry is already subsidised by the tax on oil. The trouble with subsidisation is that it puts the burden on those who do not use coal just as much as it is put on those who do. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government who, in 1965, stated clearly in their Fuel White Paper:
The Government does not favour a continuing general subsidy for coal production.
We are, therefore, left with the third possible way of providing this money, and that is by increasing the productivity


of the industry. To do this there are various avenues open. There is, for example, the increased use of mechanical means for cutting and loading coal. There are other alterations which could be made in the management of pits which could hopefully lead to better productivity. Face lighting might be an example.
But ultimately productivity increases depend on the miner himself. One of the most serious damages done to the miner in recent years, and certainly since the war, has been the contraction of tie industry—this movement from the old established figure which Lord Robens gave of 200 million tons down to the figure quoted today of 143 million tons—giving the miner the feeling of being in a kind of shifting sand in which he does not know what the ultimate size of the industry will be.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that productivity in coal mining has increased at a faster rate than productivity in any other industry in Britain?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I do not dispute that. I am simply saying that the provision of the extra money could come from extra productivity. The agreements which have been the subject of these negotiations relate in part to productivity deals, and the N.C.B. has been prepared to accept on trust an increase of 2 cwt. per man shift, but has stuck over the figure of 3 cwt., which would have met the claim that is being made. Productivity has certainly increased. I am suggesting that, as one of the three alternatives I have given to provide the money which the miners require, it must rise still further.
The N.C.B. is in a difficult position. On the one hand it must take account of its statutory obligations relating to a return on net assets and, on the other, the Board's Chairman has repeatedly pointed out that it must look to the case which the mineworkers have put forward.
It is obvious that the solution which has been proposed so far is unsatisfactory and will not be accepted. I hope, therefore, that the miners themselves—and hopefully Mr. Victor Feather will be able to bring this about—can once again get round the table with the Board to deal

with what I believe is a quite marginal problem at this stage.
Despite the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) the answer probably depends on a re-examination of the productivity agreements to see if somehow the gap between the 2 cwt. per man shift and the figure of 3 cwt. can be bridged, for in my view it is in this area that ultimately the answer will be found.
Whatever the reason, the miners have not wanted to go to arbitration. Nevertheless, it a third body, perhaps a court of inquiry, which must in my opinion ultimately provide the answer; which must find a bridge between these two opposing views. If this does not happen, then I share the gloomy foreboding that this strike could escalate into something much more damaging for the economy.
I hope that we will not see a situation arise where £200 million worth of capital equipment is lost underground for ever, where pits are closed for good through geological collapse and where the industry suffers a blow from which it will never recover.
Despite everything that has been said, I genuinely believe that the coal industry still has a bright future. Indeed, I cannot recall any hon. Member who has spoken today saying anything to the contrary. Nevertheless, we are facing an industry in despair because those who work in it have faced one burden after another, with contraction and the rest, and see themselves no further forward.
I hope that when he replies to the debate the Secretary of State will say that the Government have every faith in this industry and believe that it has a future, because ultimately the only criterion of success for coal mining is the ability to sell in competition with the other three fuels I have mentioned. There is no other road for success which this industry can take.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I have had the good fortune to listen to the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) in the past and I accept that he has expressed sympathy for the miners.
However, he seems to share the view of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—echoed by his hon. Friend the


Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and many hon. Gentlemen opposite—that coal mining must operate according to the law of supply and demand.
We are constantly told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that unless the industry operates according to this law, we will find ourselves in a chaotic situation. In other words, unless the industry is profitable in terms of the law of supply and demand, the N.C.B. will not have the money to pay decent wages to miners.
Quite a few kind words have been uttered by hon. Gentlemen opposite in this debate. Having expressed sympathy and admiration for the miners, the Secretary of State made a threatening speech in which he as good as told them that there was no hope for the industry—[Interruption.]—and that they had to battle on in competition with other forms of fuel.
I need hardly repeat the trials through which the industry has gone in recent years while transitional arrangements have been made. It is clear that, at any rate for the time being, saturation point has been reached in productivity. After all, productivity in mining has increased by over 60 per cent. in the last 10 years. If every industry had had that record the Labour Government would not have faced balance of payments problems and we should now be in a position to pay our miners the decent wages they deserve.
The hon. Member for Canterbury said that the timing of the strike was wrong. Unless an employer is hurt by a strike, there is no point in having a strike. Those on strike have to hurt someone in order to win. Unless they hurt someone, they cannot win.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about the miner being a responsible member of the community. They talk, too, about responsible leaders in the industry. Nothing is worse than a bad Government and a bad employer to ruin what is considered to be a responsible leader, because they will never give that responsible leader the kind of increase that he ought to be given for his men. The miners can get what they want only by a show of strength. The Government and the employer will give way because of the strength of the miners.
For many years miners have been brooding over a deep sense of injustice,

but in spite of the tremendous dissatisfaction which has been growing over the years, with the exception of one or two eruptions, they have acted with a great amount of tolerance and reasonableness, so much so that people have sometimes wondered what has become of the old militancy and the fighting spirit which the miners had years ago.
Why have the miners become so determined to fight for a fairly large wage increase? During the past 15 years they have seen manpower in their industry cut by about half. During that period hundreds of pits have been closed, leaving desolate villages that were once tightly knit mining communities. Mineworkers have had to move from one pit to another, sometimes to a neighbouring pit, and sometimes to a pit still within the area, but one which meant miles of travel to work.
Many miners have come to coalfields in Yorkshire and the Midlands from Scotland and the North-East. It is not easy for miners to move from one pit to another. Many of them have been transferred two or three times, and some even more often. One of my hon. Friends said that some men in his area had worked at five different pits.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to realise—nor, for that matter, do some of my hon. Friends—what it means to a miner to uproot himself from one pit and move to a new one. Many miners never do that if they can avoid it, because the pits are all a little different. They have different methods of working, and it is not always easy to establish with a new team of men the friendly relationship that existed in the old pit.
During all this change there has never been any disruption whatsoever. Reference has been made to the co-operation between the N.C.B. and the N.U.M., and it is of tremendous credit to the mineworkers and to the board that this great change has taken place without much disruption. The miners have always been waiting for fair play, but they never seem to be able to get it to the extent that they deserve.
Concurrently with the reduction in manpower, the movement of labour, and the modernisation of production methods, miners have gone through the experience of seeing coal drop from its status as the


foundation on which every industry in Britain was based to being just another fuel having strong competitors. Also during this period the miners have suffered the indignity of seeing their wages fall from the top of the league to the 16th place. The Chairman of the National Coal Board boasts about this increase putting miners back to the sixth position, but wage increases for other industries will be granted, and within six months the miners will be back in 16th place if they accept the recent offer.
A few months ago the Government decided what increase the miners should be paid. The Board was given its instructions in a discreet way. It was told that 7 per cent. was the norm. Twelve months ago the Government took on the postal workers. They thought that they were a weak trade union, that their negotiators were in a weak position, and the Government won the battle after six weeks. No one yet realises the strain that was placed on the postal workers who themselves had always been loyal to the nation.
The Government then picked on the mineworkers because they thought that they were in a poor fighting position. The Government thought that there were plentiful stocks of coal. that other forms of fuel were available, that coal imports would be allowed, and that since 1926 the miners have never struck, because of their reasonableness. The Government must have thought that the miners would run away from a national stoppage. They must have thought that somehow or other the miners' fighting spirit had ebbed away, but the strike is now on.
What about the cost of the strike? The longer the strike, the greater will be the responsibility on the Government for causing increased bitterness and hatred amongst the mining fraternity. Tempers will rise. We have seen it with picketing, and as the picketing continues, so tempers will rise still more.
There is not the slightest doubt in the minds of the miners that their request for a substantial increase is justified, but they have no faith in the Government. It is the Government whom the miners are fighting, not the Board. The Board is the buffer. The Government have laid it down that the Board must not pay more than what it has offered so far.

Mr. R. Carr: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what figure his Government laid down for the miners in 1970? Will he confirm that it was between 2½ per cent. and 4½ per cent.

Mr. Wainwright: The right hon. Gentleman cannot justify this case by quoting what the Labour Government did, because the Labour Government did many things with which I disagreed. I do not mind saying that to many of my right hon. Friends, because they did not realise what was developing in this great industry of ours, but it is with us now and this Government should get off their hind legs. I had better not use a nasty phrase, as I am not allowed to do so in this place.
The miners have been watching their position on the wages table, and who will convince them that they are not entitled to the same rate of wages as the dockers and the motor car workers? Even though they know the dangers of the stoppage for the mining industry, they are determined to continue the fight. It is no good the Government arguing that the miners should not strike or take other militant action. The miners are in this fight to win. The odds may be against them, but I believe that they will achieve far greater success than hon. Members opposite think.
The miners are fully aware of the dangers of spontaneous combustion, of the build-up of gas without good ventilation, of water, of falls at the face, and of convergence. The two latter dangers may be what will ruin many faces. The miners know that it costs between £220,000 and £250,000 to man each face with modern machinery, but the miners say that it is not their fault that a strike situation has arisen: it is the responsibility of the Government and of the Board.
Will action be taken to ensure that the Board has the money to pay increased wages? My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) said that this Government can find the money, as the Labour Government did in 1965. It should not be forgotten that the Board's capital debt is due to the purchase of new machinery, some of which may have been wasted at pits which have been closed, although it is still the Board's financial


responsibility. With the high interest rates prevailing there is a heavy annual burden on the Board's accounts. There is nothing to stop the Government from writing off part of the capital debt, thus enabling the Board to have sufficient money to grant a substantial wage increase.
If this is not done, and if the strike continues, it will prove that the Government are not bothered about the mining industry. The Government must decide this week whether Britain wants a mining industry. If they do not decide this week, it will probably be too late, because the longer the strike continues the greater will be the miners' determination to continue their struggle and the greater will be the damage to the industry. The damage to the industry will be greater than hon. Members opposite realise; or, if they realise it, they must be callous, because they know full well that each pit that closes will most probably be situated in an area of high unemployment, which will further aggravate the unemployment situation.
Automated machinery is very expensive and a terrific sum of money is required to build a plant or factory in an area in which a pit has closed so as to provide employment for the 1,000 miners thrown out of work.
There are ways of getting round this. The first way I have already suggested, namely, that the Government should make money available to the Board. Second, the Government should ensure that the Board seeks a basis for finding a solution to the problem. The miners have asked for a large wage increase. I do not expect that the Government would ever grant that amount, but the Government should tell the miners, "By giving subsidies to the Board we will make it possible for you to be back at the top of the wages league table in, say, three years time". That could be done, and if such a guarantee were to be given to the miners a solution could be found to this bitter struggle. If the Government do not do something, the responsibility will rest with them for what the industry will be like when the strike ends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) gave a graphic account of what it means to a man to work in the pits. Let us have

more practical sympathy for the miners and fewer words of the category which has been spoken so glibly this afternoon, because such words only make members of the mining group in the House more determined than ever to give our full support to the miners in this struggle to ensure that they come out of the struggle on the winning side.

8.26 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: It is possible that miners will be at the top of the earnings league, but not in circumstances which the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) would welcome.
I, like other hon. Members, have the honour to represent a constituency in which there is a coal mine and where there are coal miners. I do not suppose that many of them vote for me, but there is no group of my constituents among which I would rather find myself or upon whom I would rather rely in adverse circumstances. I agree with other hon. Members that the miners deserve our sympathy for the dangerous job they do.
We should be careful, because if we were to follow too far the very emotional line which was developed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) it would lead inevitably to the conclusion that mining was so dangerous that it should be forbidden, as sending children up chimneys was forbidden. I do not suppose that there are many hon. Members opposite who would want to push the argument as far as that.
Some people believe that some elements in the National Union of Mineworkers want to go at any rate a little distance down this road. There is a rather curious conjunction of very radical elements in the union and extreme right-wing economists arguing that the beneficial effect of the strike is that it will result in a sudden and massive closure programme such as no democratic Government could embark upon, and that only the potentially most profitable mines will be worth the immense expense of reopening. The result could be that only a handful of only the most profitable mines will remain open, manned by miners able to produce very large quantities of coal very cheaply and earning very high wages. I do not believe that it is a desirable solution, but it is a possible solution. It is a market


solution, a funny kind of solution for any Socialist to put forward.
Most of those hon. Members opposite who have spoken today have been miners or connected with the industry. Almost without exception they have spoken with compassion and a great sense of responsibility. I hope that among their more extreme colleagues none will assume that the Labour Party stands to gain in any way from the spread of industrial anarchy. It is probably true to say that industrial unrest in the early years of this century was of great benefit to the Labour Party and helped to bring it into being.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman honestly suggesting that a trade union like the National Union of Mineworkers, with a strike record second to none, the best in the industrial history of the country, is following a path of industrial anarchy by striking at this time in its history?

Sir A. Meyer: I certainly was not suggesting that. I was referring to the shreds of evidence that in some areas the N.U.M. may not be in complete control of the situation. It is a situation that needs to be watched very carefully, because I do not believe that industrial anarchy will serve the purposes of any party. It produces the sort of situation that there is in France and Italy, with a Left so fragmented that it is never capable of producing a coherent opposition.
It is only in the mythology of the Left that a strike brings benefits. It may alter a situation, but it does not bring benefits because, like war, it finds its victims primarily among the innocent and the helpless. As I read this morning about the precautions that the Flintshire County Council has taken to ensure that the available coal is distributed to those in greatest need, it was forcibly brought home to me how much the strike will entail suffering for a large number of helpless individuals.
Why, then, did the N.U.M., with its magnificent record, find itself in a situation where it felt compelled to go on strike? I have said that I understand the miners' refusal of the Coal Board's offer and that if I had been a miner I should probably have voted for its rejection, but that is not mainly on account

of the inadequacy of the offer. I am far from convinced that it is inadequate; I am far from convinced that the figure is the direct cause of the strike. It is simply that the combination of working in an extremely dangerous occupation, with the feeling that it is doomed to extinction, perhaps not very far in the future, causes the miners, under stress, to lose sight temporarily of where their best interests lie.
If my analysis is correct, the key to the situation does not lie in a big improvement of the offer. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) may be right in saying that the difference between the two sides is not nearly as large as it sometimes seems, and that it is a question merely of adjusting the productivity element in it to reach agreement. If that is so, well and good. But apart from minor adjustments like that, I believe that the answer to the situation is not merely to improve the offer, because I think that it is enormously important, and also in the interests of the miners, for the Government to win the battle against inflation. The hon. Member for Dearne Valley was unfair to talk about the Government picking on the miners. What the Government are doing is to try to apply a norm—I know that they do not like the word—for wage increases, without fear or favour, to all sections of the community. It is in the interests of the nation as a whole, including the miners, that that battle should be won.
I should like to see the climate of opinion transformed, and I believe that that can be done. I found myself in profound disagreement with the extremely able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who argued on the purest economic lines that coal was becoming an increasingly uneconomic fuel and that the future lay with oil. When we can get our own oil, petrol and natural gas from the North Sea, it may be that that will be true, but that is some way away, and I thought that my hon. Friend rather shortened the time scale. We are a long way from being able to depend on oil under our own control. Therefore, we are unhealthily dependent on oil from Middle Eastern sources. It is always said that the Arabs cannot drink their oil and must sell it to us. But I believe


that if many Arabs could cause us to choke by drinking their oil, they would do it. British policy should be designed with that point very much in mind. I do not believe that Arab Governments are any more Powellite than is the N.U.M.; I do not think that they decide their selling policies purely on the basis on what will pay them best. The British Government should be acutely aware of this mounting risk. The more rapidly we run down our coal industry, at any rate until such time as we can replace it from sources under our own control, the more we shall be at the mercy of Governments that are well aware of our vulnerability in this respect.
It is necessary, possible and desirable, for the Government now to make a public declaration of their confidence in the future of a reasonably expanding coal industry, and in the certainty of a decent livelihood for a foreseeable period ahead for the people engaged in the industry. This, far more than any pressure on the National Coal Board to increase its offer in an inflationary direction, would transform the situation and enable the strike to be brought to an early end. One thing on which I am quite certain is that the end to this strike must be very early indeed.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) has largely echoed the sentiments expressed by all hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the Government side of the House, with one exception. I am expecting one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite to be in the Lobbies with us tonight because they made out such a powerful case.
The hon. Member for Flint, West referred to the market. He said in effect that the miners had a wonderful case for an increase but the market philosophy would have to be distorted to pay them the proper wage. Does the hon. Member think that this applies to the Concorde workers? Did we not have to make an anti-market arrangement for the farmers? Did we not have to make special arrangements to ensure that they could survive in what is known as the market climate? I will not wear that kind of nonsense. Almost without exception. all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have conceded the

case for a substantial increase for the miners. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry never came to grips or even looked like coming to grips with the position facing the miners, and I thought his speech was a poor one from a man in his position.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) who said that the miners are facing a grim time in their history. I hope, if I am here long enough, that I may be elevated to become what is known as an elder statesman. We never have any younger statesmen. We have to be either old or dead before we become elder statesmen, but I hope that in the fullness of time I may be elevated to that position so that I may be called at six o'clock or half past six, instead of being called at about 20 minutes to nine and having to make a hurried speech.
Everyone has bags of sympathy for the miners. The newspapers all refer to the co-operation which has been demonstrated by the union over the years. When I was in the pit and was a branch secretary we agreed to every procedural device to increase productivity, and we co-operated all along the line. Yet today the miners are working longer hours than in 1919, when they were given a seven-hour day, which they lost in the 1926 strike. The slogan at that time was, "Not a penny off the pay and not a minute on the day." The miners survived six long, cruel months and then they were driven back.
Nationalisation when it came was much prized and the five-day week was even more prized. At that time the miners were told, "Look, lads, we can demand the earth, but let us not destroy the temple of nationalisation. We shall get rewards in the fullness of time." But they have not had those rewards.
The miners have co-operated and they have not had their hours reduced to the pre-1919 figure. They arrived at an agreement whereby they had a 7¼-hour day in about 1961. The arbitration tribunal recommended that when productivity reached a certain point the men should get that other quarter of an hour and so get back to the 1919 position, since they had shown such magnificent co-operation. The Coal Board and the union decided that to knock off the 15 minutes would not bring any appreciable


benefit to the men, so they aggregated those quarter hours to give the men seven extra rest days. So I am right in saying that the miners are now working longer hours than they did 53 years ago.
What has been the end result of all this co-operation? It has not stopped pit closures. It has not stopped men going from one pit to another, and on the promise that the next pit is a long-life pit, and then being told that it is a short-life pit.
We have been chided by hon. Gentlemen on the Government side about the Labour Party's attitude. Certainly we had a wage freeze and the miners suffered like anybody else, probably more. One of my earliest memories is seeing the Southport pit in St. Helens being blasted down in 1931 and 1932 and the men thrown on the dole like old boots.
The Labour Party brought in redundancy payments. The Labour Party for the first time gave to the miners the concession that when a man was 62 he could retire on 90 per cent. of his take-home pay. The Labour Party brought in the wage-related benefits which benefited the miner probably more than anyone else. The record is not entirely black. We will not take this from anyone opposite.
The remarkable thing about this strike is that for the first time the miners have struck on the wages offered. I have a very good source for that, and it is Bill Paynter. When he came to the Lancashire Miners' Gala in 1964 they were holding a ballot on the wages offer. I remember him saying to the audience, mostly miners, when reminding them of the history of solidarity and great affection for the union:
We have never in our history struck on a wages offer. We have struck when they have increased the hours or reduced the pay or not given us an offer.
Miners see workers in private industries refusing twice what they are being offered. They have been driven to this situation. They cannot be faulted on the Industrial Relations Act procedure, but they can see that unless they assert that whatever the consequences they will withdraw their labour, unless they take this hard and rocky road which they have trodden before, no one will listen to them. They can listen to all the fine words about being marvellous men but that

does not put anything into the pay packets.
I will not go over the conditions of service of the miners, but I was in the pits when we paid a couple of coppers a week to give pensions to the old men—ten bob a week. The tears were blinding them when they came into the office to collect it. My old father-in-law received it, and it was as though these men had won the football pools. They did not have to come begging for it. Pensions today are miserable and derisory. Miners see workers in other industries not comparable to their own enjoying a much better status, a more comfortable life and a bigger pay packet.
What shocked everyone about the ballot was the militancy of what had previously been termed moderate areas, areas which previously could have been depended upon to reject a strike call. These were the so-called right-wing leadership areas but these men have now rebelled and said, "We have had enough".
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) in a most remarkable speech told us about the Nottinghamshire miners who truly practise Socialism. I am sure that he is proud to say that he represents such a mining area. The miners in his area stood still with their wages for almost four years. These men, and others at one or two pits in Lancashire, including my own of Sutton Manor, saw their wages drop from £30 and £40 a week. When the power loading agreement came in, in the interests of their lower-paid colleagues they stood still and allowed the other lads to jump up. Now some of these lower-paid workers would be better off on the dole or sick; so much for co-operation.
Nottinghamshire miners—and I am proud of this as a mining M.P.—who work in the most prolific and profitable area of the country, have stood still in the interests of their colleagues. I do not know how they have done it, but now they are among the most militant areas, not because they want more money for themselves, but for everybody in industry.
The Government's hands are not clean on the question of wages policy. They cannot stop the terrific but justifiable increases in the private industries. And I do not condemn those men for getting


their £3, £4 or £5 a week increases. The Government are not so worried about the private sector but are concentrating their efforts on the public sector.
The only man who can put the situation right tomorrow, when the union and the Coal Board meet, is the Secretary of State for Employment. He can give the word and say to Mr. Ezra, "You can stop this strike because these men are deserving of reward." The situation is becoming more embittered as time passes, but the men are still willing to sit round the table following the settlement of the strike and to discuss anything which will improve productivity. They realise that this is one of the keys to the problems in the mining industry and that this can give them even better rewards.
The Government have made no attempt to come to grips with this matter. They can do something about the situation tomorrow. I warn them that the miners' background is very much tied up with what happened to their fathers. When those men were let down by their colleagues in the trade union movement they still took that rocky road, and it must be remembered that in those days there were no social security benefits. But the miners followed the mandate and stuck it out.
They are in the same mood today, and this is after 25 years of solid co-operation which nobody can fault. Yet the miners have slipped from the top of the league down to sixth place. I question whether they are even in sixth place, even taking into account the offer; and if I had more time available to me I could easily demonstrate that this is so.
My final word is to ask the Government to shake themselves out of inaction. They are not dealing with men who will be browbeaten. The men's case is unanswerable. They want more in the wage packet, and the Government can put it there. It must be realised that this strike will damage the industry and will damage the country itself. It will certainly damage the reputation of this already badly damaged Government.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: This is a highly critical and important debate and all hon. Members who have taken part in it have made valuable contributions. This debate is not just about

money or about figures or percentages. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber has a well-stocked brief either from the National Union of Mineworkers or from the National Coal Board, or perhaps from both. I believe that both sides have set out in compelling detail the case we are considering today.
My contribution will win me no additional political support or kudos, because there are no mines or collieries in the Macclesfield constituency and the number of my constituents who work in the pits in North Staffordshire and who live in the southern part of my constituency in Congleton are few. Therefore, I can be totally objective about this matter.
At the same time, I do not speak without some knowledge of the subject of mining and of the conditions in the mining industry. I have on two occasions contested the seat held by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), and I have represented for a period of five years on the county council a mining town in the north of Warwickshire in the constituency of my hon. Friend and colleague the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed).
I have made many friends among those who work in the mining industry, both underground and on the surface. At the same time, as a member of a local authority and as the representative of a town, I thought that a way of getting to know what was going on in the area was to be available to and to visit all parts of the town and all associations in the town. For that reason, early in my career as a county councillor, surprising as it may seem to many hon. Members opposite, I was accepted as a member of a miners' welfare club and institute—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Not in my constituency.

Mr. Winterton: I agree that it was not in the constituency of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). Only last week I visited that miners' welfare club. I was not lynched. I had an opportunity to talk to miners who are on strike about their many problems. Their feelings on this issue run very deep. We are talking about people of great character and of great loyalty. What is more, they are people of great toughness.
We are discussing the future of an important national industry. It is perhaps our only indigenous source of fuel which is not dangerously open to sabotage or interruption in the event of any international conflict. The coal industry is still a great one, despite its ups and downs over the years. I am convinced that it still has a great future.
I oppose the present strike. I believe that it is unnecessary and a tragedy not only for the industry but for those who work in it. I regret that the National Union of Mineworkers decided not to accept arbitration, which is a part of the negotiation procedure that it has accepted in the past. However, there is a minority in the coal industry which is very badly paid, and it is the case of those workers that I wish to put to my right hon. Friend today. They are very badly remunerated for their work, and all the figures of average pay which have been bandied about during the debate mean very little to a man when he sees his pay slip. Pay slips do not lie. They do not blur the vision. They are fact. Certain grades of workers, both underground and surface, earn very little more than they could obtain if they were on social security—

Mr. Skinner: They earn £18 a week. That is less than social security benefit.

Mr. Winterton: When thousands of their fellows in the car industry, in the docks and even in the brewing industry earn substantially higher wages for much less exacting work, I share the sense of injustice that they feel.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: The hon. Gentleman says that he has talked to miners in a working men's club. The hon. Gentleman goes on to say that he opposes the present industrial dispute in the industry. What solution is open to miners against the background of the injustice, which he acknowledges, in terms of remuneration to certain miners?

Mr. Winterton: Perhaps I ought to say that I am optimistic. If the mineworkers had gone to arbitration, I believe that a more generous offer would have been made.
We must get the miners back to work as soon as possible. The miners want to

return to work. I urge the Government—I hope that the Minister in his winding up speech will give this assurance—to press the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers to enter into immediate negotiations without strings, for the national good if for nothing else, with a view to increasing the offer to those in the lower-paid grades in the industry even if it is impossible to offer any further increase to the better-paid grades. At the same time, I believe that we must urge the National Coal Board to improve the productivity incentive offered to the higher paid grades.
Let there be a spirit of willingness and constructive thinking, not a spirit of hostility. Let there be a constructive approach on both sides and an understanding of both points of view. This debate will have achieved nothing today if we do not get the miners back to work immediately.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I think that I have a right to speak in the debate because I have heard hon. Gentlemen opposite speculate to some extent on the negotiations. I am an ex officio member of the National Executive of the National Union of Mineworkers by virtue of the fact that this year I am Chairman of the Miners' Parliamentary Group. Indeed, I took part in the negotiations. I have heard hon. Members talk about the intent of the miners and their leaders to reach a settlement. At our last meeting in London we sat for six hours endeavouring to reach a settlement.
Some sections of the Press have tried to assert that the N.U.M. is controlled by certain predatory forces and that there are people in the coalfields who are holus-bolus all out to take industrial action. This is very far from the truth. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), in a remarkable speech, pointed out that there is a great feeling of moderation in the areas of the N.U.M. Translating it into terms of right and left wing, the majority on the National Executive of the N.U.M. is moderate. Therefore, we are entitled to claim that men of moderation found the offer made by the National Coal Board to be absolutely unacceptable.
It is remarkable that, although we have had lots of sympathy expressed for the


miners in the debate, when it comes to giving them money the Government appear to draw the line. I do not think that the Government are entitled to tell Parliament and, indeed, the nation that the responsibility for trying to reach a settlement in this injurious dispute rests with the T.U.C. To some extent it is an indictment that, after the time that this strike has already run, the only people who seem to be concerned about the miners' industrial action are the members of the T.U.C., which has taken the initiative in getting both sides together.
I do not know who is to reply, but it will be a great disappointment to the whole House if, having listened to some of the speeches, the Government are not prepared to say something positive about giving more money to the miners and bringing an end to this dispute.
A lot of Aunt Sallies have been flung around in the debate. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, opening the debate, flung in some real Aunt Sallies. It is a pity that he did not study the brief submitted by the National Coal Board, rather than just read it. He talked, for example, about arbitration. We were all circulated with the brief from the National Coal Board. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman studied the brief of the National Coal Board on this question of arbitration, which he introduced into the debate. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) also introduced this question by saying that he was convinced that if it went to arbitration the miners would get a just settlement. There is not a single trade unionist, not only in the mining industry but in any industry in the country, who believes that if an industrial dispute goes to arbitration he will get a fair settlement.
That is why, if the right hon. Gentleman had studied the brief, he would have realised that he was 11 years out of date. It was in 1961 that the miners said they were having no further part in arbitration, because they had experienced what happened in arbitration.

Mr. McGuire: Seven pence a day.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend says "Seven pence a day." We were not Members of the House at that time. We were working in the industry then. At the national conference, my hon. Friend and I cast our votes for ending this so-

called independent arbitration. It is a question of the Act. Therefore, let us not discuss arbitration as if something new has been introduced. It is 11 years out of date. For the Government to trot out information to the House which is 11 years out of date is doing a disservice to the House and to the nation.
What miners are concerned about was stated by my right hon. Friend. Indeed, it is a key, to some extent, when we are talking about whether there is more money in the kitty. That is the question of carrying out capital reconstruction of the industry and how miners at present have on their backs the cost of pits that never made a penny profit from nationalisation. In my area, there was a new pit at Rothes, Fife, started by the Fife Coal Company. It never produced a penny profit from the day it was sunk and had to be closed because of geological problems. When one looks at the balance sheet of the National Coal Board today, one finds that costs like that are on the miners' backs. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend talks about capital reconstruction of the industry, he is talking in the language of the miners and the language that our unions have campaigned for. Our unions have been right. We predicted that nuclear power would be a failure and made speech after speech in the House. We said that the 1967 White Paper on fuel and power was disastrous. Now it is a joke. No one regards it as authentic. It is fit only for the waste paper basket.
I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of the debate and will realise that the miners' case is unanswerable and that the nation is backing the miners day by day. Let us not allow this dispute to get out of hand.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: The debate has reflected a feeling that exists in the British coal fields, but there must be millions of people in Britain wondering how this strike has come about. Forty-six years have passed without an official strike in the pits. But those who read the report of the debate will begin to understand how this situation has been brought about. Speeches from this side of the House, especially the last one, have portrayed the mood of the mineworkers, and the Government would do well to


heed the advice that has come from my hon. Friends.
A few months ago most people were amazed at the remarkable turnround in the coal industry's future and its fortunes. Less than a year ago, for example, Ministers and members of the Coal Board were predicting a new and rosy future for the industry. Even a few minutes ago, the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) predicted a rosy future even in this situation, as did the Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson).
A year ago, the Government went out of their way to anger the miners with the Coal Industry Act, when they decided to hive off the profitable parts. Thank goodness we have not heard much about that lately. Ministers and Coal Board chiefs were talking about stabilising output. They had a modest recruiting drive and we were told that the worst of the pit closure programme was over. Now, as we were told so forcibly by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland), all the miners' co-operation has been thrown back in their faces. This is how the miners see it. Anyone who has seen the miners' strike meetings, as I and many of my hon. Friends have, over the last 10 days, can understand this militancy.
This is how the co-operation went. The number of those working in the pits was reduced from 703,000 in 1956 to about 280,000 now. The number of pits being worked went down over the same period from about 840 to under 300. This rundown was brought about, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, with the co-operation of the miners. This programme of streamlining could not have been carried out if the miners had not wholeheartedly co-operated.
Many of these measures went against the deep instincts of the miners, but they proved that they were men of moderation. Some of my hon. Friends think that they were too moderate, but certainly men who regarded the industry as the very fabric of their lives co-operated throughout this period. The strength of the militancy expressed now has surprised many people. I think that it surprised the Government; it certainly surprised some of the national union leaders. But the measure of bitterness within the coalfields has gone very deep.
Anyone who has taken the trouble to study the history of the last 15 years knows that this is not the normal posture of men in the pits. No group of workers has done more to help facilitate changes in their industry. They have co-operated in every possible way. No doubt the Secretary of State for Employment will also confirm that tonight. But we want him to go much further than just acknowledging that co-operation. They certainly co-operated at every stage of technological development. We were assured that ultimately the industry would reach a size and a viability which would offer wages befitting the dangerous and arduous nature of the work.
All this must be seen against the background of the industry's capacity for change, with its location and the lack of job opportunities when men were thrown out of work. As has been said, it is a regional industry—70 per cent. of the coal industry is in intermediate and development areas. It is remarkable that there has been this degree of co-operation when miners have seen what is happening in their regions.
Only a few years ago, when the Western European coal industry was faced with redundancy, it took to the streets. We saw, on television, violent scenes on the streets in Belgium, but right throughout the late 'fifties and early 'sixties violence of that kind was never seen in Britain. Far from being mindless militants, as some people now suggest the miners are, they have been absolutely model employees.
What is this dispute all about? Why has this agonising trouble arisen? The miners were lead to believe that, given their co-operation, the industry would be in a better shape to pay decent wages. They were told that they would come top of the wages league and would stay there. They now realise that the opposite has been the truth.
One striking miner told me last week that lavatory cleaners at British Leyland get as much as the top rate in the pits. "Dustmen and grave diggers are paid more than surface craftsmen, and, while I do not begrudge them their pay, miners should receive a fair wage as well," he said.
Miners' conditions have slipped back and it was as clear as a pike-staff months


ago that unless the N.C.B. made a decent offer this year this confrontation would arise. It was known as long ago as last June that the miners would not allow their relative position in the wages league to deteriorate further.
The figures must be known and understood by the Secretary of State. In 1967 average mining wages were £2 above the national average and about £1·50 above average earnings in manufacturing. By 1971 miners earnings had fallen below the national average and were £2 less than earnings in manufacturing. Indeed, nearly one-third of miners were taking home less than the money that qualifies a man with two children for family income supplement.
I have followed the negotiations closely. They started in September and throughout the period the N.C.B. has been talking in pence rather than £s. I have seen the minutes and documents prepared by the N.U.M. and the reply from the N.C.B. No set of union negotiators could have been more fair.
Mr. Derek Ezra has admitted that he is not prepared to compensate miners for the increase in the cost of living since the miners last received a pay increase. In his view, the present offer is 2·3 per cent. in real terms lower than the rise in the cost of living. But he says that if one looks at the offer in combination with the wages paid last year, one sees that it outweighs the rise in the cost of living. This is how I understand the way in which Mr. Ezra is putting his case, and I thought that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) put it in that way.
I agree that, taken over a two-year period, it just about does that, but it does so by the magnificent sum of one new penny per £ per year. In other words, one new penny is the reward that Mr. Ezra is offering the miners for their contribution to the industry's future.
Into this soothing mixture are poured some vague and pious hopes about inflation being eased in the coming months. But every miner knows that his rent and fares will be increased in the next 12 months. For example, the Tory-controlled Chesterfield Borough Council in my constituency will, at the express wish of the Secretary of State for the Environment and his right hon. Friend who is

responsible for this matter, put up council house rents in April by 27 per cent., and naturally many of these houses are occupied by miners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) has informed me that the coal industry housing association in his constituency, whose houses are occuppied wholly by miners, will have its rents increased by £1 a week very soon. In fact, he informs me that rent increase notices went out in the first week of the strike. The Government, in advance of any legislation, are twisting the arms of councils all over the country to put up rents in three months' time by about 50p a week. How much will the miner's penny be worth in those circumstances?
What has angered the miners most is the indecent relish with which the Board has carried out the Government's bidding. In my area during the overtime ban the Board took a delight in cutting miners' wages by deliberately sending workers home during normal working hours. The Derbyshire area secretary, Mr. Parkin, spoke about £1 million wages being lost by these tactics during that period. The Board has conducted the whole operation in a provocative and cavalier manner.
The final piece of crass stupidity was when the Chairman of the National Coal Board said on Friday, 7th January that his offer had been withdrawn and that in any resumed negotiations they would start from scratch. That was absolutely stupid. Anybody knows that in such a situation it is the usual practice to leave the matter on the table to form the basis of new negotiations, and no single action has angered the miners more than that announcement.
Mr. Derek Ezra took over the chairmanship of the Board only six months ago. He was well known within the industry, and he probably received a lot of co-operation at that time, but he has got off to a bad start and it will be a long time before he wins back the confidence of the miners.
Reference has been made during the debate to the Government's rôle in this dispute. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry this afternoon implied, as no doubt the Secretary of State for Employment will when he replies to the debate, that the Government had given no guidance to the Board, that the Board


was a free agent, but who do the Government think they are kidding in this dispute?
On 21st December the N.U.M. National Executive Committee and the National Coal Board met. The union asked the Board about Government involvement, and I quote now from the minutes of that meeting:
The Union's Representatives said that they were concerned about the effect of the Government's influence on the board's offer, and asked whether the board, in adhering to the figure of around 7 per cent., were in fact doing so because of Government influence.
The Board said that they had very carefully considered the N.U.M. claim on the basis of the Board's operations, and had looked at every possible means of improving the situation. It was for this reason that they had devised their latest package offer. In so doing they had, of course, to take account of what was happening externally.
It is nonsense for the Government to keep up this pretence. Only two days ago Mr. Eric Jacobs, writing in the Sunday Times, said:
the National Coal Board's … proposals were dictated far more by a sense of what was appropriate within the current bargaining situation, the limits of which had been set by the Government, than by what was appropriate to the future of the industry itself.
Do not let us have any further nonsense from the Government about offering no guidance to the Board.
We know, the miners know, and I think the country knows, that the Government are up to their neck in this dispute. That is why we on this side of the House understand the refusal of the miners' leaders to go and play musical chairs last week at the Department of Employment, and this afternoon we had a strange and unconvincing explanation of that episode from the Secretary of State for Employment.
If the right hon. Gentleman is really anxious for talks with the miners' leaders, as he implied this afternoon he was, why is he not big enough, when he replies, to ask the miners' leaders to come and see him? Why does he not say that he is prepared to use the services of his languishing conciliation officers? Does he intend to leave all the initiatives in this dispute to Mr. Victor Feather?
We therefore look forward to the winding up speech so that the Secretary of

State can tell us that he is prepared to take some initiatives. The calls for this have come, not only from this side of the House, but also from the hon. Members for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith), for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), and for New Forest. It is an insult to ask the leaders of a great union to go to see officials and to tell them the facts—facts which are already on the departmental files. Every informed industrial correspondent knows the facts.
If the Secretary of State decides to announce tonight that tomorrow he will invite the miners' leaders to go to see him, they will go to see him. I have the assurance and the authority of the National Union of Mineworkers to say that to him.
We on this side think that it is right that these two Secretaries of State are taking part in this debate, because they both bear a responsibility for the outbreak of the dispute and it is their responsibility to help to bring about a settlement. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not say much about the prospects for the industry. It is true that he said something that the Minister for Industry was saying 12 months ago; but a year ago the Minister for Industry was making statements inside and outside the House about the industry's bright future. Even Chapman Pincher said something to the same effect in yesterday's Daily Express.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) put some serious questions to the Secretary of State about capital reconstruction. I hope that the Secretary of State will undertake to examine these matters. There have been many changes since the last capital reconstruction took place in 1965. For example, over 150 pits have closed since then. What is the present capital debt? I understand that we have reached the extraordinary position where miners can win an operating surplus for the Board of approaching £100 million a year without the industry's accounts showing a profit.
If this matter were examined and put right—if the strike continues for much longer, it will have to be examined much sooner than many people think—it would give the Board greater financial flexibility and manoeuvrability.
Even if the present financial structure remains in train, the Government and the Board must realise that it will be less costly to make a fair offer to the miners than to prolong the strike. The Daily Mirror pointed out the other day that the overtime ban and the cost last week alone in loss of production, upkeep of pits, other services and clerical salaries, would have paid for another £1 a week above the Board's offer.
The critical issue in the debate is whether the Government intend to sit back and do nothing to help to end the dispute. Is the Government's only rôle in the dispute to whisper to the Board to stand firm? Are the Government determined to force the miners to sweat it out?
We are told over and over again by Ministers, particularly by the Prime Minister, that we are on the verge of unparalleled economic expansion. Yet this industry, which provides nearly 50 per cent. of our energy needs and powers 75 per cent. of our electrical generation, is in the throes of a dispute which is the direct outcome of the Government's discriminatory wages policy. All we get from the Government is a series of homilies and the pretence that it is nothing to do with them. It is no good their trying to keep up the pretence that they are not involved in the dispute, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Employment will not try to do so. We had it all through the postal dispute. We know that they are involved, that they are whispering to the Coal Board to stand firm. Let us drop the pretence and know the Government's position on the matter.
If the dispute goes on there is no doubt that, with coal being responsible for 50 per cent. of our energy provision, including 75 per cent. of our electrical generation, British industry will grind to a halt and we shall not get the unparalleled economic expansion that the Prime Minister talks about. I do not think that the Government want that to happen. I hope that they do not. Pressurising an industry and those who work in it, who are still doing the most dangerous and arduous jobs in the country, to accept an offer that does not compensate them for the rise in the cost of living and leaves them at the F.I.S. level, is disgraceful.
The mood in the coalfields is of the utmost determination to get a fair deal. Like many of my hon. Friends, before I came here I was a mineworker. I have lived in a mining community all my life and for the first 32 years of my life I lived literally between two collieries in a village of 400 houses, all owned by the National Coal Board. To go to and from school I had to go through the pit yard. My grandfather and my father all spent their lives in the pits. My father retired with pneumoconiosis, and the normal sound of his breathing is now sometimes like the whimpering of a baby, it is so bad. My sister's husband is a miner and my father-in-law was a miner until he retired a year ago.
Therefore, like my hon. Friends I can claim to know something about the way miners are feeling now. There is a resentment and anger in the coalfields that I have never experienced in all my life in a pit village or in my work as a local official of the National Union of Mineworkers.
The Secretary of State this afternoon referred to the risk to the viability of the coal industry and to job prospects that the strike involves, and Mr. Derek Ezra constantly refers to this. But do the Government and Mr. Ezra really think that the miners have not taken that into account? Of course they have. I attended a strike meeting only three days ago when the feelings were best expressed by a man in his fifties who works at the coal face in a pit that he knows may well be at risk if the strike goes on. He said:
In 1939 I went to war like many others around here. We went knowing that some of us would not come back, but we went because there was a principle to be fought for. It is the same with this strike. We are going into it with our eyes open but we are fighting for a principle.
It may seem logical to the Government and the Coal Board to ask the miners to accept the offer, but can they really expect the miners to accept, after all they have gone through in the past 15 years, an offer that makes it an absolute certainty that their standards fall back even further?
No one disputes that there is massive public sympathy for the miners. I think that it has taken the Government by surprise that there is so much public


sympathy. Pretty well every national newspaper has run an article in favour of the miners. Even the Daily Express ran an article under the banner headline:
Give them the money, Mr. Ezra".
If it is the Government's intention to break the miners—and I hope that that is not the case—and so give notice to other wage claims in the pipeline, they will never do it. They have an insuperable task. They have wholly miscalculated if they think they can do it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said, the miners are moderate men. They work hard and play hard, but essentially they are compassionate men, with their strong community spirit. But if they are provoked, as I and my hon. Friends believe they have been provoked in this dispute, if they are trodden on, as many miners believe they are being trodden on in the dispute, and are expected to take a reduction in their standard of living, by God! they will fight, and much harder than any hon. Member realises.
If the Government do not want to see British industry crippled, they had better take these warnings. They are not warnings given in obdurate bravado by the miners but warnings and signs of a deep unrest among men who for 46 years have never been on official strike but are now ready to face a dispute as long as their fathers endured in 1926, but this time they say, "We will win". It would be tragic if the Government allowed the strike to go on a moment longer than necessary. In the end it will be the Government's tragedy and the country's tragedy.
For the miners, it is a fight for the workers of Britain. That is how we on this side of the House see it. Those of us who have had the honour to be sent here to speak for the miners are speaking for Britain's workers tonight. That is why we want the Secretary of State to do something, and why we shall vote against the Government tonight.

9.36 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): Before I say anything else, may I say that I agree with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) about two things, and I am sure that I speak for the whole House

in saying this. Whatever may be the merits of any party in the dispute, I am sure that we all agree that the present situation is an unusual posture for the miners and that they are certainly in no way ever to be labelled as mindless militants—to adopt and agree with the hon. Gentleman's own words.
I have one other thing to say, which may not meet with the immediate agreement of hon. Members opposite, but which I believe is completely true. If the offer made by the National Coal Board were studied, it would be seen that the hon. Gentleman was factually wrong in suggesting that it would have led the miners to a relative decline in their living standards in the coming year. That is not true. It is much more for genuine argument whether it is good enough relative to other people. We must put on record, before we get controversial about things that are controversial, that the offer put forward by the Coal Board would lead to an improvement of the miners' position and not the reverse.
Any holder of my office in any government is in a difficult position in participating in a debate about a dispute while that dispute is going on. As Secretary of State for Employment I may well have to be involved in the settlement of that dispute.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not now?"] Let me say clearly at the outset—and I shall come back to this in more detail—that my door is wide open to either the union or the Board whenever they want to come in. That is the fact.
I must try above all tonight to avoid saying anything that would prejudice my capacity to assist the parties in reaching a settlement. I hope the House will understand if, because of this, I appear more reluctant than I usually am to enter into hard debate on some of the controversial issues involved or to discuss at this moment—and I say this particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)—the possibilities of certain courses of action. It would be wrong for me to discuss these tonight, but I assure all hon. Members that the views they have expressed will be carefully taken account of and studied.
Speeches have come in this debate from hon. Members of all three parties


with long knowledge of the industry and with deep feelings for the interests and the problems of the miners. Their seriousness and their responsibility must have impressed not only hon. Members of the House but people outside. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) said he detected in the country a basic and real sympathy with the miners and their problems. That I believe is true, and it has been reflected in the debate on both sides of the House.
I say categorically, in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Chesterfield, that the Government are not seeking a showdown with the miners. We are not wishing to drive the miners into submission or humiliation. We are seeking a settlement which is just both to the miners and to the whole community, and this double duty is inescapable, not just for this Government but for any Government. So, while we have rightly and properly heard—

Mr. George Grant: rose—

Mr. Carr: I am afraid I cannot give way. To give back benchers the maximum time the hon. Member for Chesterfield and I agreed to limit the time of our wind-up speeches, and nobody interrupted the hon. Gentleman.
While we have rightly and properly heard a lot about the interests, frustrations and problems of the miners, the Government—any Government—and this House of Commons and Parliament must take into account the interests of the public at large. This above all applies to prices. No one—and I make no complaint of this—is louder in crying out against price increases than are the Opposition.
… labour costs are overwhelmingly the largest single element in the final prices of the goods and services bought by consumers.
That is a fact, and that was a direct quotation from paragraph 111 of the Labour Government's last Prices and Incomes White Paper, Cmnd. 4237, which they forced this House to approve in December, 1969.
An increase in the price of coal not only has its inevitable effect on the amount of coal sold and therefore on the miners' own interests, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South, rightly pointed out, but also enters into the cost of electricity, steel and the over-

head costs of many other forms of production.
I am sure the House would agree that the C.B.I. initiative to limit price increases to 5 per cent. is valuable and is essentially helping us to get on top of the explosive price rises which were causing so much trouble and hardship The attack on the problem of inflation by breaking into the vicious circle by means of this price restraint was welcomed by the T.U.C. The T.U.C. recognised that it must be a factor influencing pay settlements and pay claims.
The hard fact which cannot just be ignored is that the National Coal Board genuinely believes that the offer it has made is the highest possible one it could have made if it is to keep down price increases within these accepted limits. In saying that, the Coal Board is allowing for and taking on trust an increase in productivity of no less than an average of 2 cwt. per shift.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Carr: I cannot give way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Hon. Gentlemen must be fair. The hon. Member for Chesterfield was not interrupted. [Interruption.] The hon. Member—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Carr: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) fairly recognised this hard and difficult conflict between the genuine, particular interests of the miners and the pressures and frustrations which we all recognise and with which we genuinely sympathise, and the general interests and needs of the nation. He was less than fair in some of his other charges, but I will not spend time going into them. The Government have been charged by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Chesterfield with lack of candour, rigidity and preventing the Coal Board from making a fair offer to the miners. That is not true.
The Board negotiated right to the end and it really did negotiate. It adjusted and raised its offer several times up to within 48 hours of the strike. If the hon. Member for Chesterfield is to talk about constraints on the freedom of the Coal Board, what on earth does he think his Government imposed? His Government


laid down a statutory incomes policy. His Government said that in 1970 claims and settlements should be within the 2½ per cent. to 4½ per cent. range. In 1970 under this Government the miners got not 2½ per cent. or 4½ per cent.; they got 12½ per cent. and this year they have been offered 7·9 per cent.

Mr. Varley: I expected this point and it can be answered in this way. Never mind the merits or demerits of the last Government's incomes policy; at least it was applied to everyone. This Government's policy is a discriminatory policy directed against the public sector and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Carr: The last Government's incomes policy was applied in such a way in the first six months of 1970 that when this Government took office we found a situation in which earnings were rising six times faster than output. The Labour Government's incomes policy was applied unfairly, arbitrarily, and with an eye on one thing only in the last six months—and that was trying to bribe voters.

Mr. George Grant: rose—

Mr. Carr: What is undoubtedly the Government's concern is that we have made—

Mr. Grant: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. George Grant) must resume his seat.

Mr. Carr: We have made clear, with the greatest candour and frequency, that the interests of the whole community must be taken into account in all pay settlements, including this one. From the moment we took office we stressed the vital importance of striving to bring the level of pay settlements progressively down to a much more realistic level, not only in the public sector but in the private sector, too. The latest figures published by my Department show that this is happening. Since the earnings and wage indices which show de-escalations are made up overwhelmingly by private sector settlements, we could not produce such figures if the de-escalations were taking place only in the public sector. This is the basis of more stable prices, and for

everyone, from pensioners right through the working population, it is the most urgent need. It is the basis of the growth and expansion which alone can bring this country to full employment again—[Interruption.]—which we all desire to see.

Mr. Orme: Are you going to the meeting tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: Order. On the whole this has been an orderly debate, and questions from a sedentary position about whether I am going to a meeting tomorrow morning are not in order.

Mr. Carr: We all wish to achieve this major advance—the de-escalation in pay settlements and prices which is going on. The rate of increase in prices has been falling. In the first six months of 1971 the rate of increase was 11 per cent. In the six months to November that rate had dropped to 6½ per cent. This is the basis of further advance and it is this basis which this Government, any Government, have the duty to maintain because it is in the interests not only of the whole country but of the miners—

Mr. Orme: Tell us about the strike.

Mr. Carr: There has been a call for special treatment.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Carr: This may be so, but how can it be achieved? No one has suggested how this can be done.

Mr. Skinner: I can help.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) expressed the fear that any relative improvement won by the miners would be overtaken by further settlements. If the Opposition are saying that the miners are to get relatively more do they realise that they are saying that others must get less? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Who do they say should get less?

Mr. Swain: rose—

Mr. Carr: The hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright)—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is replying to the debate. He must be heard.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Member for Dearne Valley, for example, asked for the miners to be given a promise—

Mr. Swain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to draw your attention to the fact, but you just said that the right hon. Gentleman was replying to the debate. He is doing no such blasted thing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The reason why I made that observation was that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to deal with an argument of the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright).

Mr. Carr: If hon. Gentlemen opposite will give me a chance—

Mr. George Grant: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman is asking us whether we—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] The right hon. Gentleman is asking us—[Interruption]—whether we—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to remember that this is an extremely serious debate. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?

Mr. Grant: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding us that this is a very serious debate. The right hon. Gentleman is asking hon. Members on this side of the House not to push the miners' case and thereby to stab them in the back. This is what this debate is all about.

Mr. Speaker: That is a point of argument. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Carr: I appeal to the House. This is a serious matter. Voluntarily, I gave up five minutes of the normal time in order to allow more back-bench hon. Members to contribute to the debate. The House allowed the hon. Member for Chesterfield a quiet hearing, and I should be given an opportunity to say things which may be important to people outside this House even it they are not to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
If we are asked to make a relative improvement in the miners' position, other people must be held back, relatively speaking. That is a matter of clear definition. Unless or until the Opposition, individual union leaders and the

T.U.C. make it clear that they are prepared to co-ordinate the making of claims to bring about this state of affairs, that is an idle hope.
Hon. Members have made clear why they think that the miners have resorted so untypically to strike action. They feel that it is because, over a period of years and not suddenly, they have been pushed about and driven down. This is a serious problem, but it is not a party political problem. It is a national problem.
It happened under the last Labour Government. It may have been happening before, but, when the last Labour Government took office, the average earnings of miners were slightly above the average earnings for the whole of industry. When they left office the average earnings of miners were below the average earnings in industry. So this is not a matter of party difference.
If we want the maximum reconciliation, it is important that this should be recognised and stated. We have here a national problem on a major scale in getting reasonable relativity between the pay of one section of the people and another, and of finding some way of changing established relativities if, at any time, we wish to do so. Those are the realities by which we are all constrained in this dispute—the Government, the Coal Board and the miners.
Within those constraints, what can be done to end the strike? I hope that tomorrow's talks may help in bringing some light. I have already said that my door is open. I assure the House that I shall neglect no opportunity which, in my judgment, offers a reasonable chance of successfuly bringing the parties to a settlement which is fair to themselves and to the community. I shall miss no opportunity to do that. But that opportunity must be my judgment, just as it always has been the lonely and very difficult judgment of all my predecessors, of whatever party, who have faced industrial disputes.
That is my rôle, and it is a rôle that I shall fulfil. But I say again to the House—and this is what the country will expect Parliament to realise—that there is a double duty. It is a duty to reconcile what is a genuine conflict of very real interests. There are the interests of the miners, who feel that they wish to re-


establish themselves in their old position in relation to other people, quite regardless of their actual pay. There are also the interests of the whole community to win back the stability of prices which is

Division No. 33.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ellis, Tom
Loughlin, Charles


Albu, Austen
English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Fred
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Allen, Scholefield
Ewing, Henry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McBride, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCann, John


Ashley, Jack
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh


Ashton, Joe
Foley, Maurice
McElhone, Frank


Atkinson, Norman
Foot, Michael
McGuire, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Forrester, John
Mackie, John


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackintosh, John P.


Baxter, William
Freeson, Reginald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Beaney, Alan
Galpern, Sir Myer
McNamara, J. Kevin


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood




Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marks, Kenneth


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding, John
Marquand, David


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marsden, F.


Booth, Albert
Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bradley, Tom
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, Christopher


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Meacher, Michael


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamling, William
Millan, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Milne, Edward


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hattersley, Roy
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cant, R. B.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Carmichael, Neil
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hooson, Emlyn
Moyle, Roland


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Horam, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Ronald King


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Oakes, Gordon


Cohen, Stanley




Coleman Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth. C.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Bert


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Cronin, John
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Orme, Stanley


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Janner, Greville
Oswald, Thomas


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Padley, Walter


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Paget, R. T.


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pardoe, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, S. o. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred


Deakins, Eric
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pendry, Tom


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kaufman, Gerald
Pentland, Norman


Delargy, H. J.
Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest G.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kinnock, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Prescott, Pohn


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dormand, J. D.
Latham, Arthur
Price, William (Rugby)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lawson, George
Probert, Arthur


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Rankin, John


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leonard, Dick
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dunn, James A.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Richard, Ivor


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Marcus
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

the foundation of growth and of full employment. That is what we shall do.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 268, Nose 300.

Rose, Paul B.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Watkins, David


Sandelson, Neville
Strang, Gavin
Weitzman, David


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wellbeloved, James


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Swain, Thomas
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Taverne, Dick
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Thomas.Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Whitlock, William


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Siliars, James
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Silverman, Julius
Tinn, James
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Skinner, Dennis
Tomnney, Frank
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Small, William
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Smith. John (Lanarkshire,N.)
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Spearing, Nigel
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry. S.)


Spriggs, Leslie
Varley, Eric G.
Woof, Robert


Stallard, A. W.
Wainwright, Edwin



Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Walder, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael(Fulham)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. J D. Concannon.


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wallace, George





NOES


Adley, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Holland, Philip


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James
Holt, Miss Mary


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hordern, Peter


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hornby, Richard


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dixon, Piers
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Astor, John
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Atkins, Humphrey
Drayson, G. B.
Howell, David (Guildford)


Awdry, Daniel
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dykes, Hugh
Hunt, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Eden, Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
James, David


Batsford, Brian
Emery, Peter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Farr, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bell, Ronald
Fell, Anthony
Jessel, Toby


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Benyon, W.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jopling, Michael


Biffen, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Biggs-Davison, John




Blaker, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fortescue, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Body, Richard
Foster, Sir John
Kershaw, Anthony


Boscawen, Robert
Fowler, Norman
Kilfedder, James


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fox, Marcus
Kimball, Marcus


Bowden, Andrew
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fry, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kinsey, J. R.


Bray, Ronald
Gardner, Edward
Kirk, Peter


Brewis, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Kitson, Timothy


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Knox, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhart, Philip
Lambton, Antony


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Goodhew, Victor
Lane, David


Bryan, Paul
Gorst, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Gower, Raymond
Leggue-Bourke, Sir Harry


Buck, Antony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gray, Hamish
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Burden, F. A.
Green, Alan
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Loveridge, John


Carlisle, Mark
Grylls, Michael
Luce, R. N.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gummer, J. Selwyn
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Cary, Sir Robert
Gurden, Harold
MacArthur, Ian


Channon, Paul
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McCrindle, R. A.


Chapman, Sydney
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McLaren, Martin


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McMaster, Stanley


Churchill, W. S.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Macmillan,Rt.Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)




Clegg, Waltor
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Cockeram, Eric
Haselhurst, Alan
Maddan, Martin


Cooke, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Madel, David


Coombs, Derek
Havers, Michael
Maginnis, John E.


Cooper, A. E.
Hawkins, Paul
Marten, Neil


Cordle, John
Hay, John
Mather, Carol


Cormack, Patrick
Hayhoe, Barney
Maude, Angus


Costain, A. P.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Critchley, Julian
Hicks, Robert
Mawby, Ray


Crouch, David
Higgins, Terence L.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Crowder, F. P.
Hiley, Joseph
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Curran, Charles
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutslord)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Miscampbell, Norman
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Moate, Roger
Redmond, Robert
Tebbit, Norman


Molyneaux, James
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Money, Ernle
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Monro, Hector
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tilney, John


More, Jasper
Ridsdale, Julian
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Trew, Peter


Morrison, Charles
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mudd, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Murton, Oscar
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Rost, Peter
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Neave, Airey
Royle, Anthony
Vickers, Dame Joan


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Russell, Sir Ronald
Waddington, David


Normanton, Tom
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Nott, John
Scott, Nicholas
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Onslow, Cranley
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sharples, Richard
Wall, Patrick


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walters, Dennis


Osborn, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Ward, Dame Irene


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Simeons, Charles
Warren, Kenneth


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sinclair, Sir George
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Skeet, T. H. H.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Parkinson, Cecil
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Peel, John
Soref, Harold
Wiggin, Jerry


Percival, Ian
Speed, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Spence, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Sproat, Iain
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pink, R. Bonner
Stainton, Keith
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Pounder, Rafton
Stanbrook, Ivor
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Woodnutt, Mark


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Worsley, Marcus



Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stokes, John
Younger, Hn. George


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom



Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Sutcliffe, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Raison, Timothy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Ministerial and Other Salaries Bill and the Mineral Exploration and Investment and Building Grants Amendment Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

NEW AND ALTERED SALARIES

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, at end insert:
Provided that in every case £1,750 of the salary payable shall be regarded as an allowance provided pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (4) of the Resolution of this House, entitled Parliamentary Expenses, of 20th December 1971 and shall be paid only after office holders have claimed such allowance in the manner prescribed for other Members of this House and have established their claim thereto.
I wish to make it clear at the outset that I am not against Ministers of the Crown receiving salary increases, just as I am not against hon. Members receiving them. Perhaps I should declare my interest in that I have voted for, and declared myself in support of, the Boyle Committee's recommendation that salaries should be increased.
I think it wrong that Ministers should receive increases well over and above the 38 per cent. which has been awarded to hon. Members. This figure of 38 per cent. should not be considered a once-and-for-all award, because it represents eight years' arrears, so that it means a salary increase of 4½ per cent. per annum, which is fair and reasonable.
In making these comments, and in the comments that I shall make on this subject through the night, I want it to be clearly understood that I do not have personalities in mind. I have no animosity against any Minister, past or present, with the Leader of the Opposition or with any of the Whips. I wish

them well and I am the first to agree that they are entitled to adequate salaries.
In addition to the 150 per cent. and 175 per cent. salary increases which they are to get, it is proposed that the extra £1,250 which Ministers and other office holders have been in the habit of receiving should be increased to £3,000.
What is perhaps not understood is that today we have been discussing whether the miners, in asking for an increase of £9 a week, are asking for too much. I agree that to the poor old worker on the bench £9 a week may seem a lot, but some of these increases for Ministers, ex-Ministers and future Ministers work out at £5,000 to £6,000 a year, and I consider that to be a reasonable increase even for the best of my friends.
In addition, we are told that the sum of £1,250 which Ministers can claim as an allowance is to be increased to £3,000. That is £60 a week. That is a not insignificant sum, and yet today we have been debating the miners' claim for £9 a week. The Government tell workers who work with their hands and with their brains, who work in the pits, in the docks and in the workshops that they must limit their increases to 7 per cent. or thereabouts. I am told that if we go into the Common Market wage increases will be limited to between 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. That has already been laid down. I do not know how some of my hon. Friends who are in favour of the Common Market can oppose the Government on the miners' pay issue, bearing in mind that when we go into the Common Market we shall be statutorily confined to increases of between 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. for miners and everyone else.
It is suggested here that Ministers and other office holders should have their allowance of £1,250 per year—not a bad supplementary allowance—increased to £3,000. In my Amendment I suggest that the figure of £3,000 should be reduced by £1,750. In other words, I am suggesting that we should leave the figure as it is.
There is a good precedent for that, because my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister, thought that the time was not opportune, and that perhaps it was not


morally right, while he was supporting a wage freeze and an incomes policy, for his Ministers to accept the full award of the Lawrence Committee. The Government will say that this is a report from the Boyle Committee, and that they have agreed to accept its report in toto. It is nice to know that when they want to do so the Government can accept a committee's report in toto. They do not always do so. We know that in the past this Government, and others, too, have not accepted in toto. each and every committee's report.
I remember the time when the nurses were offered an award, but the Minister of Health at the time would not accept the independent committee of inquiry's recommendation. I shall not argue whether the nurses were more entitled to an increase than Ministers are—it would be a fascinating exercise to do so—because I understand that the nurses have put in for a new increase. But I do not think that they have put in for a 175 per cent. increase, though I am not sure that they would not be entitled to do so. Indeed, I should support them if they did put in such a claim.
I do not want it to be thought that I am miserly. If someone merits any increase, I am the first to support it. That is why I support an increase in Members' salaries and Ministerial salaries, provided that Ministers are treated on a democratic basis and receive the same percentage increase tied to the cost of living as is suggested, and as will be implemented from next month, for Members.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): This month.

Mr. Lewis: We shall receive it next month, but it will apply from this month. The right hon. Gentleman is right, as usual. He may not be right on major political issues, but on this matter he is absolutely right.
I should be the first to agree that, if Ministers had to provide their own transport, they might well be entitled to the £3,000, but they do not have to provide their own transport. If they had to meet the cost of secretarial salaries, as Members do—

Mr. Ray Mawby: They do.

Mr. Lewis: Let me finish. If they had to pay the salaries of their civil servants whilst they were engaged on secretarial work connected with their Ministerial jobs—now does the hon. Gentleman wish to interject, "So they do"?—it would be different. Ministers pay for secretarial services performed by their private secretaries out of their Members' salary. I agree that they are entitled to recompense, but it should be on the same basis as that for Members —£1.000 per year. A Minister doing his parliamentary work should not be entitled to claim £3,000 to pay for a secretary to help him with his parliamentary work as compared with an ordinary Member receiving £1,000 for the same service.
Therefore, the £3,000 is unreasonable and is £2.000 more than a Member will receive for the same secretarial work; because if a Minister is doing his Ministerial work his civil servant will do the Civil Service clerical work. If a Minister is doing his parliamentary work as distinct from his Ministerial work, his private secretary should do the secretarial work.
We know that Ministers must travel, and it would be wrong for Ministers to have to pay their travelling expenses whilst on Ministerial duties. But a Minister does not have to do that. A car is provided for him or he gets certain facilities. It would be wrong if a Minister had to pay travelling costs out of his Ministerial salary or parliamentary allowance while his civil servants were reimbursed in full or indeed made a profit.
10.30 p.m.
A Minister, like his civil servants, while carrying out his Ministerial duties, is reimbursed for his hotel costs or receives a cash payment of £6.50 per day. I shall later refer to the fact that Members of the House of Lords receive £8.50 per day tax free. I am not sure whether the rate for civil servants has been increased to equal that received by their Lordships. It might be argued that they are entitled to the same rate. If Members of the House of Lords can get £8.50 tax free for putting their nose in at the door and saying, "I am here, Charlie. Give me £8.50 tax free in addition to the


£1,000 a year to which I am entitled", Ministers may argue that they. are entitled to the same treatment. However, some hon. Members on this side of the House might object.
I would resolve the miners' strike tomorrow if I could say to them, "Go back to work; you do not have to worry. We shall give you the same as Members of the House of Lords are getting, £8.50, for putting your nose in at the pit and saying, 'I have clocked on'"

Mr. F. P. Crowder: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the miners would go back to work if everybody in the House agreed to a 10 per cent. reduction in our proposed salaries?

Mr. Lewis: The hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood my point. I would bet the hon. and learned Gentleman £10 to a penny that if Joe Gormley or Laurance Daly were told by the Government that if the miners went back to work tomorrow they would be able to claim £8.50 per day tax free every time they put their noses in at the pit door, whether they worked or not—I would not work in a pit for £10 a day—the strike would be resolved. The Government would not have to ennoble any miners; they would not have to give them any titles.
I am pointing out how unfair the system is in treating one section of the population who are Ministers or office holders or ex-office holders—

Mr. Mawby: Or Members of Parliament.

Mr. Lewis: No. I am referring not to salary increases but to the fact that certain categories of people are to have their £1,250 a year increased to £3,000— £1,750 extra.

Mr. Mawby: Why did not the hon. Gentleman vote against the Motion to raise Members' pay?

Mr. Lewis: I must start all over again, and the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip will have to blame the hon. Gentleman for interrupting. I declared an interest at the start. I am not against Members having an increase, and I voted for it. I am not against Ministers having

an increase. But we are not on salary increases; we are on the question of a special allowance, which Ministers are at present receiving of £1,250 a year and which is being increased to £3,000 on top of their salary increase.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The main point is that Members of Parliament and Ministers should have some way of writing off expenses in their constituency, and that any expense in excess of the secretarial allowance or other allowances should be written off. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree. I understand that it must be written off against a Parliamentary salary and not against a Ministerial salary.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes exactly the point that I have been trying to make. I am all in favour of Ministers having the same opportunity as Members to write off a reasonable figure. In the case of M.Ps. the figure is £1,000 a year per secretary, or more if that can be substantiated, but a Member cannot get £3,000 a year laid down as a write-off. He is limited—and I do not object to this—by the Resolution of the House to £1,000. If he can substantiate more, he can claim it. I am suggesting that Ministers should be put in exactly the same position. By all means let them have £1,000 a year for a secretary, which is reasonable. By all means let them claim extra, up to £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000, but they must then substantiate it in some way, as Members must.
But I went on to explain that Ministers will get this £3,000 as an allowance which is undefined, and I am not clear why they should have preferential treatment as Ministers for their parliamentary job. Certainly as Ministers they must be entitled to higher salaries than ordinary Members. As we are living in a capitalist system, not many hon. Members would, just for the honour and glory of being a Minister, accept the expense and the additional worry and responsibility of being a Minister for the same salary as a Member.
But we are not on that. We agree that they should get extra for being Ministers, but why should a Minister, a junior Minister or, to be fair to the Government, my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip or the Leader of


the Opposition, be able to claim £3,000 as an expense allowance and Members of Parliament be able to claim £1,000 for the same type of activity? The Leader of the Opposition also has a car provided, so he does not have that additional expense. I had better read the Amendment:
Provided that in every case £1,750 of the salary payable shall be regarded as an allowance …
I see that I have given hon. Members an extra £500. At the moment they get £1,250. I have slipped up. I should have said £1,250, but the cost of living has gone up.
Over the years I have put down many Motions about justice not only being done but being seen to be done. Justice is not being seen to be done if we make Ministers and junior Ministers an allowance of £3,000 for their parliamentary duties and we make Members of Parliament an allowance of £1,000.

Mr. Mawby: This is not clever.

Mr. Lewis: It is not clever, but it is important. This is factually true although hon. Members may not like it. The hon. Gentleman has again interjected from a sedentary position. If he makes a serious interjection I will deal with it, but not silly points.

Mr. Mawby: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I am not giving way yet. I will give way in my own time. I do not intend to be clever. I intend to put the facts before the people. The Government have brought this on late at night so that the general public and the Press do not hear about it—

Mr. Robert Mellish: That just is not true. The reason for the Bill coming on at this time of night is that the Government made a concession to me that the business arranged for the whole day, which was this Bill, was put on after 10 o'clock so that the House could debate the coal miners' dispute which the Government agreed was of paramount importance.

Mr. Lewis: I apologise to the Leader of the House and to my right hon. Friend if I said wrongly that the Government had brought it on. Technically they have,

but I accept that it was done by arrangement through the usual channels. I am not a party to the usual channels.

Mr. Mellish: That is just as well.

Mr. Lewis: I have to be careful how I put this because I see that the Chairman of Ways and Means is in the Chair and that his Deputy is about to take over. There is nothing personal in this. I have the greatest admiration for the Chairman of Ways and Means, so if I criticise him it is not as a person but as an office holder. What do I find? That the Chairman of Ways and Means is to have, in addition to his salary increase, an increase from £1,250 to £3,000.

The Chairman: Order. In the interests of accuracy I should point out that my salary and allowances are not affected by the Bill.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I am not on salaries, I am on allowances, and, with great respect, the Chairman is involved. The Chairman of Ways and Means, the Deputy Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition Chief Whip, two other Whips and some others, are all involved.
I turn to deal with Mr. Speaker. Rightly, he has a staff and an office to help him in his duties. I have not been able to ascertain what that involves, but I know that he has a secretary, and secretarial staff, and that they do an admirable job. But I dot not know why they should have the increase. I am not personalising this. If I were, I should attack the Leader of the House and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Prime Minister gets this increase, in addition to his £4,000 a year tax-free expenses, car, chauffeur, free coal, light, gas and so on. And there is a tax-free bonus of £37,000 from the Brussels Commission.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend saying that the Prime Minister is having coal delivered at this time? If so I will arrange a picket.

Mr. Lewis: I was not suggesting that the Prime Minister might be getting black-leg coal. I was pointing out that he has 10 Downing Street, Chequers, free coal, gas, light and so on. It has been estimated that the facilities in Westminster are worth £6,000 a year.
Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends come here day after day and say that the right hon. Gentleman is the most wicked Prime Minister that we have ever had and the most awful Prime Minister that the country has ever had. He has attacked our school children by depriving them of their free milk. He has been responsible for increasing the rents of the poor, the disabled, and the miners. He has been responsible for a tediously long list of awful, retrogressive Measures. On the very day that the right hon. Gentleman tells us to oppose any increase for the miners, on the very day that he will no doubt tip the wink to the authorities in the hospital services to refuse the nurses their increase because it is above the 7 per cent. that the Government have laid down, we are expected to award the right hon. Gentleman, in addition to a salary increase, another £1,750 a year on top of his £1,250 a year and on top of his £4,000 a year tax free.
I will settle for a negotiated settlement—

Mr. Skinner: Arbitration?

Mr. Lewis: No, not arbitration. That is what we have told the miners. I will settle for a negotiated settlement. If the Prime Minister and the Government indicate that they are content with their own suggested mean of 7 per cent as an increase on both the salary and the tax-free allowance, I will accept it. But they are not doing that. Instead, they are going well above it.
Again, I emphasise that this is a cost-of-living increase. The greatest increases in costs which the average member of the public has to meet bear upon such expenses as fares, rent and rates, heating, coal, gas, electricity, telephone charges, postal charges, and so on, all of them due to the policy of this Government. The Prime Minister has to meet none of them. He gets his house, coal, light, fares, and so on. He does not have to pay for any of them. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman has not had to meet any of these increases in the cost of living. Unlike the ordinary miner, the ordinary docker, the ordinary journalist, and the ordinary worker in a factory, the right hon. Gentleman is cushioned against these increases. The price of soap, for example, has risen drastically

since this Government have been in office. The same applies to soda and to practically every other commodity that one cares to mention. But the Prime Minister does not have to meet any of these costs. He gets his towels, his bed linen, his furniture, his carpets, his notepaper—everything—

Mr. Skinner: Everything?

Mr. Lewis: No, not everything. There are certain comforts of life which he has to provide himself out of the rather meagre stipendiary which he gets from the Government.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman has to provide some of his food. It is not inconceivable that occasionally he might have an official luncheon at No. 10 Downing Street. For the information of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), such a luncheon would be provided at Government expense. One day my hon. Friend may get an invitation to an official luncheon. I wish him well. If he goes, he will have the wine, the nuts, the cigars and the luncheon provided at the taxpayers' expense. Good luck to him. Indeed, who knows, I might get an invitation one day. I dare say that I should enjoy it. I would welcome such a lunch at the taxpayers' expense. I have not had an invitation in the last 27 years since I have been a Member and I am not likely to get one in the next 27 years.
The Leader of the House—I do not know how to put it into words—can purse his lips and open his eyes to the full as he did just now so charmingly. However, I have never had a free lunch at No. 10 Downing Street.
I have been attacking the Prime Minister for some time, but I will now pay a tribute to him. The only occasion on which I was invited to No. 10 Downing Street was thanks to the generosity of the present Prime Minister. That was the first time in my 27 years in this House. About 12 months ago the right hon. Gentleman kindly invited me—the first time ever—to go to No. 10 Downing Street to meet the Australian cricket team. I pay tribute to him. I had some nice cocktails and snacks. I hope to God that he did not pay for them out of his own pocket. It would be unfair if he did. I assume that the Government Hospitality


Fund paid and that I, along with all other taxpayers, paid for my enjoyment as well as his.
My point is that in all probability on most days of the week the Prime Minister attends a luncheon, a dinner or a reception, so he does not even pay for his food. I have no objection to that. Indeed, when he is not at No. 10, he is probably attending some official function elsewhere. The point is that the Prime Minister cannot be expending very much at all. He may have to buy the Christmas turkey for himself and his family.

Mr. Skinner: He does not.

[Mr. ARTHUR PROBERT in the Chair]

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend will steal my best points and take the glory. In fact, the Turkey Federation selects the biggest turkey it has and delivers it to the incumbent of No. 10 Downing Street. It so happens that, due to Heath's folly, the turkey has been delivered to the wrong person. But that will not last. In past years my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has had it. Therefore, I am not attacking the Prime Minister personally. Next year or the year after—certainly within five years from 1970—the present Prime Minister will be out and my right hon. Friend will be there. Therefore, I am seeing that he, too, does not have what I term excessive assistance from the State.
We are giving £1,750 a year extra to these incumbents—temporarily, of course —and a few others who are waiting in the wings. But we cannot give the old-age pensioners any extra, although they have to meet all these increases in rent, rates, cost of living, and so on. The only expense that I can trace—and it is hard to trace them—which the Prime Minister would have to meet, as would other Ministers who hold grace-and-favour offices, with whom I shall deal shortly, is for their clothing. With great respect, an extra £1,750 a year on top of £1,250 a year is not needed just to meet the Prime Minister's clothing bill. If it is, his salary could and should cover it.
11.0 p.m.
I do not want the Committee to think that I am getting at the Prime Minister. I am not. What I have said about him could be said for a number of other

officers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not present tonight, lives next door to the Prime Minister. He is his neighbour. The Chancellor lives at No. 11, not No. 10. Like neighbours, I hope they get on well together. They ought to get on well together, because they receive exactly the same perks. We had the Chancellor going up to his constituency at the weekend, and wrongly being mobbed by some of his constituents.

Mr. Skinner: Wrongly?

Mr. Lewis: Yes. I would never agree to anyone being mobbed, be it the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister. He certainly should not have been mobbed. But I can understand those unemployed workers feeling a little hot under the collar, because they are not only unable to obtain wage increases but also unable to earn a wage at all. Due to the Government's policies and the Chancellor's policies, those workers in his constituency are not entitled to take home a wage. They are told to go on National Assistance and Social Security and told to get unemployment benefit. They are told that they cannot be allowed to work.
Yet the man who is economically responsible for this situation is getting a fabulous salary plus an increase from £1,250 to £3,000 a year of tax-free expenses. He also gets his house and his coal and fuel, plus everything that comes in such as carpets, furniture and lights. This is the man who says, "You wicked council tenants are being subsidised, and you must fall in with the system of being charged on a rent rebate system. If you receive more than a certain income you will not be entitled to any rent rebate and you must pay the full economic rent because we as a Government say, 'If a man can afford to pay, he should pay'." But that does not apply when it affects the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because they say, "We shall be entitled to claim our house, light, fuel and all the other perks tax-free, and we shall be able to include that in addition to our salaries."
That leads me to the Foreign Secretary. He said yesterday that it was wicked of Mr. Mintoff to demand more money. I do not know whether Mr. Mintoff is wicked. But I understand that the Foreign Secretary lives at No. 1,


Carlton Gardens. For the edification of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, who may not know this, No. 1 Carlton Gardens is not the kind of poor working-class mining area that he knows in Bolsover. It is not even the kind of area I have in parts of my constituency, in the poorer parts of West Ham.

Mr. Skinner: It is not a Coal Board house.

Mr. Lewis: It is not a Coal Board residence. It is not a one-up, one-down. It is Carlton Gardens. Estate agents tell me it is worth about £7,000 a year without the furnishings, and I do not know to how much this would increase with the furnishings included. But here again, the Foreign Secretary is to receive his increase from £1,250 to £3,000. I do not want to be personal, but I do not think the Foreign Secretary is hard up for a few bob I believe he has a small amount of income elsewhere, and he is not in dire need of this money. I heard in the debate today that perhaps some of the miners were not on the minimum, that some might be paid the maximum and might not be as hard pushed as others. But the Foreign Secretary is at Carlton Gardens, a salubrious area.
I turn to the Home Secretary. We all love, admire and respect him. He is a great man—but he is not here this evening. I pay a tribute here to the House of Commons research staff who did a marvellous job in finding out for me that the Home Secretary lives in a flat in Admiralty House. I do not know what his naval connections are, but I am advised by my right hon. Friends who have enjoyed the position before the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) that it is an admirable flat, luxuriously furnished.
The Home Secretary pays no rent for it. His use of it is not regarded as income for tax purposes. I have school-keepers and people who look after public buildings in my constituency who are paid a nominal salary of £20 a week. The job requires that they live on the premises and the flat which is provided is assessed for income tax purposes as part of their income. It is regarded as an emolument. But the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the

Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary do not pay a halfpenny in tax for the emoluments they receive.
I do not understand this. I do not know what the Home Secretary's fiat in Admiralty House is worth—probably another £5,000 a year. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster lives next door.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has a flat at 6, Charlotte Square, Edinburgh, which I assume is in the better part of the City and therefore worth a few pounds a year. He, too, will get this rise. So will the Government Chief Whip, but he, poor chap, does not get a residence.
There will also be rises for the Leader of the Opposition, who I mentioned, the Opposition Chief Whip and two other Opposition Whips. I always thought that their job was to oppose the Government, and here the Government are increasing their allowances. But there is a method in their madness. My hon. Friends may think that the Government are doing it through generosity and because they like the present incumbents. That is not so. The Government are seeing to it that when, in a couple of years, they are thrown out of office, they will get the advantages that they are currently giving the Opposition.
11.15 p.m.
Indeed, there is agreement on this between the two Front Benches. This is like a game of musical chairs. When one lot leave office, the other lot take over. But the Government are making a mistake because once they leave office they will never get back again. The Prime Minister, when he becomes the Leader of the Opposition, will enjoy the Rover car and chauffeur that go with the office, not to mention the 175 per cent. salary increase that is now proposed and the £3,000-a-year expense allowance. This may make for smooth administration, but unless the Government are prepared to be fair to the ordinary work-people on the shop floor, in our hospitals, factories, schools and in the mines, I cannot support it.
Having gone through a few of those mentioned in the list which I have obtained from the Library who have been singled out for this £3,000 a year


allowance, I come to ordinary hon. Members, but for them there is no change, apart from the secretarial allowance. I am not jealous about this, but I cannot understand why some people in this place should have preferential treatment.
This is a democratically elected House of Commons, although across the way we have a House which is non-democratic in this respect and the occupants of which are almost self-appointed and who are position-seekers. They get jobs for which they have not been elected. I am reminded of the Kremlin. Office seekers are given jobs in this fashion there.
I note from the list from which I have been quoting that the Lord Chancellor's salary will go up, though he will not get this allowance. Why not? Mentioned in the list are Cabinet Ministers in another place, the Paymaster-General, the Minister without Portfolio, Ministers of State, Under-Secretaries of State, the Government Chief Whip, his deputy and other Whips in the House of Lords. None of those office holders—I shall deal with their salaries when we get to them early in the morning—gets any allowance. If it is said that Ministers are entitled to £3,000, as against £1,250, as a special allowance in addition to their salaries, why is my noble Friend, Lord Hailsham, not entitled to claim the same sum? Why should he not get £3,000? He is a good friend of mine. He sat with me in the House, and I was pleased to know him well. I like him. I am friendly with him, and now I am his advocate. I think that he ought to get £3,000 a year.
It may be said that he and other Cabinet Ministers, the Paymaster-General, the Minister without Portfolio, and so on, do not get this allowance because they do not have parliamentary constituencies. If they do not have parliamentary constituencies, that seems to my kind of small-minded way of thinking that the reasons why Ministers receive the allowance is that they have parliamentary constituencies. If they receive the allowance for that reason, it follows ipso facto, that they receive it for parliamentary work in their constituencies.
If that is so, they ought to be considered in the same way as Members of Parliament. There is a difference between a Member and a Minister. The fact that the Lord Chancellor and Cabinet Ministers in the other place do not receive the extra £3,000 a year means, I assume, that they do not have parliamentary constituency expenses. If that is so then, quite rightly, they are not entitled to claim these expenses. But, equally, if Ministers in this House have parliamentary constituency expenses, they should be entitled to claim the same amount as is claimed by any other Member.
It is for that reason that, rather hurriedly and without going into too much detail, I have tried to explain why I consider that the Amendment ought to be considered favourably and, I hope, accepted by the Government.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has spoken for quite a long time, and very fully. He made a number of points, both those relating directly to his Amendment, and a number of others, and we must at least be grateful to him for proclaiming at the beginning of his speech about an hour ago a complete lack of animosity towards all and sundry.
The object of the Amendment, to which the hon. Gentleman referred several times during his speech, is to provide that £1,750 of the proposed total salary for all ministers specified in the First Schedule to the Bill, the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Whips, should be reckoned as covering, in the first place, the allowance of up to £1,000 which is payable to Members in respect of their secretarial expenses under a Resolution accepted by the House and, in the second place, the allowance of up to £750, payable for the additional cost of stopping overnight in provincial constituencies or, the other way round, for hon. Members who represent provincial constituencies staying overnight in London. Moreover, the Amendment would apparently require that these allowances should be claimed by the Ministers and office holders concerned in just the same way as back benchers will be able to make their claims for re-imbursement of these expenses.
As the hon. Member has pointed out a number of times in the last hour, Ministers and paid office holders who are Members of this House can already, as of now, claim these allowances in addition to the salaries—and they are salaries—provided by this Bill, so that the net effect of the hon. Member's Amendment must be, and can only he, to reduce the income of all the Ministers and of the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Whips specified in the Schedule and the Bill by £1,750 a year. That is the core, the main aim, of the Amendment about which the hon. Member has spoken at length. This Amendment will also presumably—and I was not quite clear about this—apply to their Lordships who, as he pointed out, do not have constituencies, so there would be a rather odd anomaly.
The hon. Member is aware, and must have been aware when he put down the Amendment, that it departs in spirit and basically from the line of argument and the proposals put forward by the Boyle Committee. As you must be aware, Mr. Probert, in raising the question of the £3,000 Parliamentary allowance on top of the Ministerial salary we are moving outside the Bill, but I see by the Amendment that the hon. Member was anxious to bring the matter in again. In doing so, the hon. Member has made proposals which would depart deeply, clearly, and firmly from the Boyle package.
The Boyle Committee made clear that they considered the £3,000 for Ministers the right amount, after careful analysis and consideration, which is needed to cover the Parliamentary duties which Ministers continue to incur even though they also hold Ministerial office. They found that this was the right sum and put it forward as part of the overall assessment of salaries and remuneration required for Ministers and Members of Parliament. The Government's view is that the whole package put forward by the Boyle Committee should and must be accepted, as the Boyle Committee itself said, as a whole, and they support that totally.
The point is made in paragraph 121 of the Boyle Committee Report where it is argued that this is the absolute minimum necessary to carry on the job and to do the work effectively, and, therefore, in putting forward an Amendment which

challenges that, the hon. Member must not be surprised to hear from the Government the strongest possible advice that they must reject the Amendment and its implications and must also ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am disappointed and surprised at that reply. I thought that the Minister must accept this Amendment. The only point he put forward in rejecting it is what the Boyle Committee recommended. A lot of water has gone under London Bridge since that Report and there has been quite a lot happening this week. Lord Boyle and his Committee, when deciding this, had no knowledge that there was to be a general strike of miners. Had they known that the Government were to bring pressure to bear on the National Coal Board to see that they did not give an increase to the miners, Lord Boyle's Committee might have made a different report. There is now a different situation.
The Government are taking retrogressive action against some of the more poorly paid workers of this country who have dropped from about fourth position in the wages league to sixteenth. I do not object to an increase for Ministers, although I may object to the amount of the increase. However, the Minister made no case for increasing the amount from £1,250 to £3,000. The same Ministers who will receive this amount are refusing any reasonable increase to the miners.
11.30 p.m.
If the Minister had said that he rejected the Amendment because he intended to recommend that the Boyle Committee should immediately proceed to arbitrate on the miners' claim and to treat the miners as fairly and generously as the Ministers have been treated, I should willingly have sought to withdraw the Amendment. Indeed, if the Minister had said that he intended to appoint any other committee of inquiry with clear terms of reference so that such a committee was not restricted in making its report, and on the understanding that the Government would accept that report in toto. I should have accepted that.
The Government have two senses of value, and they are both false ones. In the cases of the nurses and other poorly paid and under-paid workers—miners, engineers, bricklayers, carpenters, and


dockers—the Government instruct the arbitration tribunal not to go above 7 per cent. But they tell the Boyle Committee that it need take no notice of the Government's views but can go outside the norm and proceed on the merits. And then the Government accept the Report in toto.
Unlike the Ministers, I declared an interest and confessed that I have done well out of the Boyle Committee. I expected the Minister to say that Ministers are doing well on salaries and expenses and houses, coal, fuel and light.
When Members' salaries were discussed, some hon. Members opposite opposed the increase. Not one of those who opposed the increase is present, not even the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Had some of those hon. Members been present I might have been able to divide the Committee on the Amendment. Although I will not agree to withdraw the Amendment, I regret that I shall not get sufficient supporters even to get a teller.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Probert):

Clause 2

SHORT TITLE

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Clause 2 provides:
There shall be paid to the Lord Chancellor"—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Clause 2 deals with the Short Title of the Bill.

Mr. Lewis: I apologise, Mr. Probert. However, we should not agree to Clause 2 because the Short Title—the "Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1971 "—is not a correct statement of fact. It does not deal with a number of points which I have raised previously and which I would have made had I had the opportunity to do so. I simply formally oppose the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

REDUCTION OF SALARY

The salary payable to any person under Schedules 1 and 2 to this Act shall be reduced by the amount of any fee or payment he may obtain while in receipt of such salary from writing, or television or radio performances and by the amount of any money prize which he may derive directly or indirectly from the public position he holds.—[Mr. Arthur Lewis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I am sure that I can get the support of the whole Committee for the Clause. It is a pity that nearly all the members of the Press have gone to bed because this is a lovely story which they should have reported.
I wish to deal with the last part of the Clause first. There are Ministers, from the Prime Minister downwards, who because of their office are able to obtain large sums of money—plums which drop into their lap—in tax-free prizes. We have a Prime Minister who—and I pay tribute to him—is a great yachtsman and has won a number of prizes. I do not want to deprive him of them, because he is worthy of them and entitled to receive them. But also by virtue of his office, for which he has received a handsome salary, plus handsome expenses, his house, fuel and so on, he has undertaken certain work in Europe. This may well be important work, and he may or may not have been very successful in his own eyes. I am not sure that in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the people he has been so successful. He it was who gave a solemn promise that we would not go into Europe without the overwhelming consent of the people of this country, yet in the full knowledge that he has not got that support, and cannot get it, he arranges for us to go into Europe and to sign the Treaty of Accession on Saturday, without letting hon. Members have a copy of even the rules and regulations connected with it until yesterday. Then for all those efforts he is awarded a prize of about £37,500. I understand that a committee recommended him for the prize, strangely enough consisting of members who have been very anxious to cajole Britain into the Common Market. One member is none other than the best Chancellor of the Exchequer the Tory Party could ever


find, Lord Butler, who I think is the Lord Chancellor of one of the universities—

Mr. Whitelaw: He is Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.

Mr. Lewis: As always, I bow to the superior knowledge of the Leader of the House and thank him for his help, which he always so graciously gives and which I am always very happy to accept.
Lord Butler, who happens to have been associated with the Prime Minister when the right hon. Gentleman was the Opposition Chief Whip and then the Government Chief Whip, decides that the best man to receive the £37,500 is—guess who?—the right hon. Ted Heath, Prime Minister of Great Britain. I cannot think that that is right, that in addition to all the things the Prime Minister is getting, all the perks, all the plums, he should receive £37,500 tax free. I should like to know what that is worth in taxable income. I wish that one or two of my hon. Friends who are experts on income tax could work out the value to a single man of £20,000 a year, plus £4,000 a year tax-free expenses, two houses, fuel and so on probably worth another £15,000, plus a £3,000-a-year parliamentary allowance, with the addition of a £37,500 tax-free bonus. I reckon he would need £1 million a year to give him that net return. All this because, by accident, by stupidity on the part of the electorate, he has been elected leader of the country and is called the Prime Minister. He has not yet said whether he will keep the money. The journalists have been handing out inspired leaks that the Prime Minister will give it to a charity. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who is a journalist, will find out for me. Our present Prime Minister might be generous and give it to charity, but future Prime Ministers might not be so charitably disposed.
11.45 p.m.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is here. He is one of the best Members of Parliament, and one of the best television political commentators in the country. If he, in pursuit of those activities, were to be awarded £37,500 as the best political commentator, I am fairly certain he

would have to pay tax on it. He is not an office holder and he may be entitled to claim that there is a difference. But the Prime Minister is not in this position. He gets a diamond handshake without having to relinquish his office. He is not like the city tycoon directors of companies who, after having ruined a company like Rolls-Royce get out with £30,000 or £40,000 on which they pay part tax. The Prime Minister, unlike them, does not have to give up his job.
On Saturday of this week a plane will leave London Airport bearing the Prime Minister either first to Brussels and then to Strasbourg or first to Strasbourg and then to Brussels.
He will then travel at public expense to Strasbourg and address the European Parliament. I shall not be there. There will be loud clapping when he has finished and then he will collect his £37,500. I cannot think that is right.
I do not believe that any person should be in the position of being able to receive large sums of money as a result of the office he holds. This is creating a dangerous precedent, which is a danger to the integrity of parliamentary democracy and the Civil Service. If the Prime Minister can get such a prize, might not the time come when an established civil servant could be awarded the Stalin Peace Prize or the Lenin Award for Peace and Understanding? Could he not be awarded £30,000 tax-free? I do not think that Lord Butler would recommend him.
The same thing could happen with Spain or, more topically, Malta. Mr. Mintoff could say to one of our top civil servants, "In the interests of peace and understanding between the Maltese and the British people will you use your endeavours to get us a little more out of the British Government and we will award you the Maltese Cross and £37,500, tax-free?" Would the Government allow the civil servant to accept it? I do not think he should be allowed to do so because it is his job and he is paid for it. Some might say he is paid too much. Yet the Prime Minister is allowed to receive this. I have said that there is a vetting committee with one British citizen on it. He is a nice chap—the best Chancellor the Tories ever had—but all the others are foreign gentlemen, actively


engaged in bluffing us into the Common Market. I do not think that this is right.
To be fair, I am concerned about this matter, whether it be the present Prime Minister or any future one who is affected. If my Amendment is not accepted, we could have a situation where the present Leader of the Opposition, when he becomes Prime Minister again, is offered £37,500 worth of roubles because he has done a good job in getting peace and understanding with Russia. if that happened, would my right hon. Friend be entitled to receive it? If he did, I can imagine the screams that would come from the Tory Party—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale wish to intervene?

Mr. Michael Foot: I thought that my hon. Friend was bringing his remarks to a conclusion, and I wished to offer one or two very brief comments on what he had said which might assist him. If my hon. Friend is willing to give me that opportunity now, he will, of course, be able to make any further observations later. But it may be that my remarks will enable the Committee to proceed with its affairs a little more speedily.

Mr. Lewis: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. But I must warn him that I have quite a lot more to say. I am in my hon. Friend's hands. He is welcome to make his points now, provided that I am permitted to conclude my own remarks afterwards.

12 midnight

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In inviting him to conclude his remarks at this point, I was not suggesting that I had the power to prevent him continuing his contribution to the debate later. That is my hon. Friend's right, of course. But I appeal to him and throw myself and possibly others on his mercy. If I put these matters in my own fashion, I am sure that my hon. Friend will listen to what I say and take it into account. Whether I have any success, no one knows. But I shall try.
This discussion is taking place at this late hour not because of the natural and normal malevolence of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Arrangements were made in order to ensure that we had the extremely important debate that we had earlier on

the coal industry. I do not say that if matters had not been arranged in this way that debate would not have been possible. But it was satisfactory to both sides of the House that it should take place now. Because that occurred, it did not mean that the Opposition, whatever may have been the view of the Government, regarded the Committee stage of the Bill as a matter of subordinate importance.
Like my hon. Friend, I have participated in debates on Ministerial salaries, which I entirely agree are perfectly proper matters for full debate in the House. Any suggestion from any quarter that debate on such subjects should be suppressed in any way is one with which I would not agree. I think that I would have the acceptance of everybody who remains tonight in saying that.
The question of what is paid to Ministers is of paramount importance and has to be discussed openly. Therefore, I am not making any complaint against my hon. Friend raising these matters. He has been forced to raise them at this hour because of the rearrangement which occurred. We are in agreement in that respect, and I am not making any criticism of him.
Moreover, my hon. Friend said that we are old sparring partners. That is perfectly correct. I accept the honour. My hon. Friend is an awkward customer in the House, and that I regard as a high compliment, because the House of Commons is largely sustained by awkward customers. If all 600, or whatever number it may be, Members were awkward customers, the proceedings of the House would be very difficult. On the other hand, if there were not a very large number of—a considerable number, a certain number, or at any rate a few—awkward customers in the House, the proceedings would be extremely tame and many evil things would be done which are otherwise exposed.
I am not criticising my hon. Friend in any sense whatsoever. Indeed, I regard him as an extremely effective Member of the House of Commons, safeguarding the interests not only of his own constituents but of many people throughout the country whose affairs would not be brought to the attention of the House as a whole if it were not for his pertinacity


and determination not be put down by the jeers and sneers of Members in many parts of the House. That takes some doing.
Therefore, my hon. Friend must understand that I am not making this appeal to him because I think that in any sense what he is asking the Committee to do tonight is improper. That is also the reason that I have listened most carefully to the major speeches which he has made on the Amendments which have already been proposed.
On expenses, I think that my hon. Friend has a considerable case. I do not entirely agree with it, but I agree with him—I emphasise this point—when he insists that it is not the business of the House necessarily to accept holus-bolus what the Boyle Committee or any other Committee recommends. This House has the right to examine and to vote against any proposals which may come from any quarter, whether it is from Her Majesty's Government, Brussels, or anywhere else. I hope that that is well understood by the Government when we come to later legislation which may be presented to us.
I have never been in favour of the proposition that, because some Committee—even in paragraph 121 which was quoted by the hon. Gentleman—says that it wants these matters to be accepted as a whole, we should necessarily accept them. I understand the reasons that the Committee recommended that it was desirable for these matters to be accepted as a whole, if possible; but, of course, the House of Commons always has the right, and sometimes the duty, to unwrap a package to see what each particular item looks like. My hon. Friend has been doing that tonight, and he has proposed, or proposes—we do not know yet—to continue to do it at a later date.
So my hon. Friend had a formidable case to make on the question of the expenses, and I hope that the remarks that he has made and that others may make on these subjects will be taken into account by future committees that examine these questions and that his contribution to the debate will have its effect in influencing the way in which future committees that examine these matters look into these questions. Certainly every committee of this nature should start by examining the debates that

take place in the House of Commons on such subjects.
The question that my hon. Friend is now discussing on the new Clause is a matter to be considered although, as he knows perfectly well, this matter has been considered in other contexts and there have been other committees that have looked at it, and there have been recommendations about whether Members of Parliament should have their earnings, whatever they may be, from other sources taken into account in the estimate of their salaries or whether they should be called upon to declare them. I had better declare an interest here. Certainly if my hon. Friend's new Clause were to be carried fully into effect, it would have some influence on my income. If that is not so, I withdraw my declaration of interest; but if it is, I am willing to acknowledge it.
However, having said all that, I would add that my hon. Friend has us at his mercy. I know his capacities very well. He has several Amendments on the Order Paper, three or four batches of which are to be called by the Chair if they are reached. If he wishes, he can keep us here for two or three hours discussing these matters. As I have said, if he wishes to do so I cannot dispute his right to do so. I hope that he will not, because I think that he will injure the case he is seeking to make.
As I have said, I do not scorn his case at all. It is perfectly correct, and my hon. Friend could perfectly well argue, that if it had not been for the rearrangement of the debate and if the discussion on these matters had taken place at an earlier hour in the proceedings of the House, many hon. Members from both sides of the House would have contributed to the debate. Therefore, he may perfectly well argue that he is discharging tonight the duty which other hon. Members would have joined with him in discharging if that had been the case. That is a perfectly arguable point. Now that I have argued it so strongly I hope that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to argue it.
It is also the case that, because of the re-arrangement, the hour and the situation—and I have listened to my hon. Friend most patiently and with interest for a considerable time—if he were to carry through the whole proposition of


debating all the Amendments and Clauses he has proposed to raise, we could be here for a very long time. Far from that furthering the argument he wishes to present about Ministerial salaries and the Bill, it may have the opposite effect.
I hope that my hon. Friend will consider whether it is not in the best interests of his case on these matters, and whether it is not in the best interests of the House, that he should restrain himself. I know that at times that is very difficult for many of us to do when others wish these matters to be pursued. As I have said on many occasions, I believe that one of the great virtues of this House is that it protects the rights of minorities to say what they think and, on many occasions, the rights of a single Member to say what he wants to say, much to the inconvenience of everyone else in the whole place. That is the virtue of the place, and certainly I would never wish to take any step which would injure that.
I believe that my hon. Friend will have plenty of opportunities. We are only at the beginning of this part of our Session and the Session is yet young. I do not want my hon. Friend to lose his faculties or to injure his resources at this early date because we shall need his assistance on even more important questions. I appeal to him therefore, quite sincerely, in the interest of hon. Members on both sides. He will not serve the purpose he has at heart in raising these matters or the purpose of injuring the Government's position—a worthy cause in which I hope we shall be joined at a reasonable date if the Government pluck up the courage to introduce the major legislation. Then, unlike now, we shall have hon. Members from both sides taking part; two major bodies of opinion and the opinion of the country will be represented by strong phalanxes of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It will be impossible to avoid all-night sittings on that occasion, not because of malevolence of the Government but because of the Government's sheer incompetence and misunderstanding of the country's proper interests. When we deal with those matters, I hope that my hon. Friend will join us in pursuing them. I

hope that tonight he will not decide to conduct his one-man campaign on these matters for the next two or three hours.
He will not serve the argument which he has already presented most powerfully. I hope he will be willing to let the rest of the Bill go through speedily under the normal procedures—not only because it was agreed through the usual channels, although part of the arrangement was that we should have a major debate at the earliest possible time when the House met on a topic of first-class importance, the situation in the coal industry.
This should not deprive any hon. Member of his rights and I do not believe it has. My hon. Friend has the House at his mercy. If he wants, he can pursue it throughout the night and we have no power effectively to stop him. But I ask him whether he would not serve the interests of the House, his own cause and his reputation better by allowing the matter to proceed swiftly. When I refer to his reputation I am not in any way seeking to criticise him for what he has done, because hon. Members' rights depend upon hon. Members like himself who are prepared, often with only a few others and sometimes alone, to make unpopular speeches. I am not protesting against unpopular speeches but I wonder whether it would not be better to proceed along the lines I have suggested.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): As the months go on, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in his new rôle—to which I welcome him—and I may not necessarily agree with each other, but I do agree with much of what he just said. I thank him for his generosity in recognising the arrangements which were made for this Bill, and the reasons that it is being considered late at night. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) for recognising these reasons.
I particularly agree that the hon. Member for West Ham, North or any other hon. Member has a perfect right to pursue any case he wishes as long as he wishes. I hope that the hon. Member will recognise my acceptance of this in the fact that I have not left the Chamber,


although I might have done so, throughout the time that he has been addressing the House.
As he requested, I immediately declare an interest in this Bill. It would be absurd if I did not—although I do not deserve some of the strictures he put upon some of my colleagues, because I do not have one of the houses.
I agree that this question is very important, that this is an important Bill, which should be discussed. I also agree that the House does not have to accept what the Boyle Committee or any other Committee puts before it. The Government, having received this independent Report, however, thought it right to accept it in total and so to recommend to the House. It is for the House to decide whether to do so, and that is the purpose of these debates.
I do not believe that this new Clause is necessary. Over the years, there has been a clearly established principle that Ministers' private interests should not conflict, or appear to conflict, with their public duties. This sound principle has been strictly observed by Ministers of all Governments. They are instructed to conduct their affairs accordingly, and I believe hat they do so.
I can speak only for myself. No one has ever suggested to me, as they would of course to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, that they should pay me anything for writing. That would be an absurd suggestion. However, no doubt people who have paid me something recently for appearing on television, but because I am a Minister and not entitled to take such a fee, they do not do so. This is strictly in accordance with the principle.
There are other principles which I feel strongly. I could outline my views about the clear and established principles for Ministers, and it is important that Ministers of all Governments should adhere to them. I believe that they do and that the principles are clearly understood. For these reasons, therefore, the new Clause is unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It was a pity that I gave away to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) because although he adduced his views in his usual charming and friendly way, that enabled the Leader of the House to

reply to the whole debate on the new Clause, with many aspects of which I had not yet dealt when I gave way to my hon. Friend.
I am convinced that we have in the right hon. Gentleman the best Leader of the House for certainly 27 years, the length of time I have been an hon. Member, and I do not say that in a patronising way. However, we have in my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale an even better future Leader of the House. Having said that, I must now be rather naughty and tell my hon. Friend that although I love and respect him, I cannot respond to his approach to me on this issue because, no doubt innocently, he misled me.
My hon. Friend told me that I could raise this subject on another occasion, but that is not so. He may have in mind a matter on which we shall join forces, but apart from that—because that matter, if it is the one I have in mind, does not come within the ambit of this new Clause—the opportunity to raise this subject has now passed, for by letting Clause 2 slip through the whole subject of Ministerial salaries will be dealt with by Resolution of the House of Commons, and there will be no more Boyle Committees.

Mr. Whitelaw: It has been made clear, and I think accepted in all parts of the Committee, that one of the principles set out when the Boyle Committee or the Review Body was given the task of looking into Ministers' and hon. Members' salaries was the fact that this would perhaps need to be done once in every Parliament of a normal length. I suggest, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that there will be no more Boyle Committees.

Mr. Lewis: I stand corrected. I should have said that there will he no more legislation in the form of a Bill. Never again shall we have this opportunity to table Amendments and to go through the stages and procedure of a Bill. With future Boyle Committees we shall have Orders in Council which. although enabling debates to take place, will not be amendable in the way that a Bill can be changed.
I had hoped that my hon. Friend would deal with some of the points which I made in support of the new Clause. I regret to tell the Leader of the House


that he rather misled the Committee, although I accept that Ministers never have received and I hope never will receive fees for television appearances, writing articles and so on. I accept that, but the matter was not taken any further. The Prime Minister has not yet said that he will not accept the £37½ million which has been offered to him if not by a foreign Government, by a group of persons representing foreign Governments. The right hon. Gentleman has not declined to accept that offer.
I want to be fair to the Leader of the House. If he bears with me for a few moments he will hear the substantive point that I am trying to make. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill, he will see that today, at 12.25 a.m., among the people who are not Ministers, there are persons who are receiving from writing, from television and from radio large sums of money by virtue of the office they hold.
I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member should have to declare his earnings inside or outside the House, but it is a statement of fact that one of the former Leaders of the House, the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), got a contract to write his memoirs. He signed that contract as a Minister, in anticipation of what he would get when he resigned from office. That ex-Minister condemned—not in the House—Members for accepting a salary increase. I do not know what it is, but it is reported in the Press that he has a large income. He has not disclosed it. Various estimates have been made of the amount, ranging from £100,000 to £150,000, but he would not have got that money as a Mr. Crossman, or a Mr. Smith, or a Mr. Black, or a Mr. Blue. He would not have got the money had he not been an ex-Minister.
There is nothing personal about this. The same thing can be said of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. The noble Lord was a Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and Foreign Minister. Lord George-Brown signed contracts and got large amounts of money by virtue of the fact that he was a Minister. No doubt the present Prime Minister has got it laid on if he follows precedent. I am not personalising. It could be

Macmillan, Eden, Churchill, Attlee or Wilson. It could be any of them. Each and every one of them, having got the rate for the job, by virtue of his office cashed in and made large amounts of money which he did not declare at the time and has not declared since.
The Leader of the House said that Ministers could not do that whilst in office. He is right. I am putting this on a fair and honest basis. I am not politicalising. I am being factually true. Here is an anachronistic situation, in that the Leader of the House cannot earn money from writing, television or radio, but the Leader of the Opposition, who receives almost as much as the Leader of the House, can, and does.
The Chief Opposition Whip, who will get well over 210 per cent. increase in salary, will be able to go on radio and television and get that which Ministers cannot get. I do not think it right because I do not think that any of these persons—I am not picking out names but am concentrating on the principle—should have the opportunity of cashing in on their Ministerial or public appointments and getting large sums.
12.30 a.m.
I read in the Press that a former Prime Minister got £250,000. He said that that is incorrect and that it has not been disclosed. I do not want it disclosed. But he was paid well at his job and would not have been able to write these memoirs unless he had been Prime Minister. I am not saying that because it was him. It is the same with Lord Avon, with Sir Winston Churchill, with Harold Macmillan and with Lord Attlee.
I do not think it right that there is a situation of a kind of hidden handout by which they say, "While you are Prime Minister you cannot and must not dirty your hands by taking hand-outs from public relations firms, from private concerns, from radio, television and the rest, but it is all right if you give a hint or come to an arrangement whereby if and when you leave office you will get, in effect a postponed payment". I exonerate and commiserate with the Leader of the House. He has not got a house. I like him and I do not want to wish it on him if he does not want it.
We have a Leader of the Opposition who will get 270 per cent. increase on his old basic salary which will go up from £4,500 plus his £1,250 to £9,500 plus £3,000 expenses, which is £12,500. he can write and go on television and do the work he wants to do and in total can get more than Ministers of the Crown, and that surely cannot be right. I am not concerned with whether Lord Boyle said it or not.
It is the same with the Opposition Chief Whip, who is getting £5,000, which goes up to £7,500 plus £3,000, making £10,500, which is a 210 per cent. increase. Good luck to him. He is a good friend of mine and I am glad to see that Cockneys are coming into their own. I am a Cockney and I pay tribute to him. But here we have a situation in which he can earn perhaps another £4,500 a year. There is nothing to stop him doing that—and the only reason he would get it would be by virtue of his office.
Here comes the crux. The present Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues will not be in those positions long. They will be on the other side. The Government are looking after their own future and are seeing to it that when the Prime Minister, in a couple of years, becomes Leader of the Opposition, he will be all right. He will get £12,500 a year, a car and a chauffeur. He will then be able to write his memoirs, go on radio and television, and get his plums by virtue of the office he once held. The people object, not to others getting the right salary for the job, but to what looks like hidden corruption. The people think that Ministers are feathering their own nests. Parliament is not now held in the high esteem in which it was once held. The people now think that all Members come to Parliament for what they can get out of it.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member has raised a point which I must seek to answer. The Labour Government first introduced, after the Report of the Lawrence Committee, the salary for the Opposition Chief Whip, of which I was the first recipient. I believe that this was a perfectly proper gesture on the part of the Labour Government very early in their period of office, because they believed that that office deserved that remuneration. At that time, when the Labour Government introduced that

salary for me, there could not have been any question that they were looking forward to a time when they would be in opposition, because they had been in office for only a short time. It is only reasonable that I should say that, as I was the first recipient of that salary and I am the best person to say it. I am entitled not only to say it but also strongly to resent the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that members of this Government, in proposing these increases, are feathering their nests and preparing the way for when they will be in opposition; nor did the Labour Government so act.

Mr. Lewis: I do not say that, but the people say it. They say that Ministers are feathering their own nests. The Labour Government introduced a nominal salary for the Opposition Chief Whip and the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition got £4,500, and the Opposition Chief Whip got £3,750, plus £1,250, as against the £3,250 for back-bench Members. The proposed increases of 210 per cent. and 217 per cent. in the salaries of these members of the Opposition, as against the increases of the Law Officers, who are not even getting 38 per cent., cannot be right morally or politically. It is not in the best interests of parliamentary government, because the Leader of the House would not dream of accepting a fee for anything he did; nor would any other member of the Government. However, although the Leader of the House cannot accept a fee, other hon. Members can.
The time will come when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House will be in opposition. Whoever is the Leader of the Opposition—it might be the present Leader of the House—would rightly claim £12,500. He would also claim a car and chauffeur, and people would say, "This is the man responsible for this. He did it to look after himself". It is not right, at a time when the miners are denied a reasonable income, that these things should happen.
I am not concerned with the question of Members of Parliament. I am concerned with office holders, present and future, who draw substantial salaries and are able, by virtue of their office, to earn probably another £3,000 or £4,000. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition says that it costs him £20,000 a year to run his office. I realise that


Transport House provides him with quite a lot of assistants and pays their salaries. I do not see why the taxpayers should pay the salaries of Tory Party staff when the Tory Party is in opposition. People may say, "Why did you not complain when the Labour Party was in office?" Transport House contributes to the cost of the Opposition. But why should the taxpayers pay the cost of running a Tory political office whose members have not been elected and, in addition—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Ronald Russell): Order. There is nothing about a political office in the new Clause.

Mr. Lewis: My Clause refers to:
The salary payable to any person under Schedules 1 and 2 to this Act shall be reduced by the amount of any fee or payment he may obtain while in receipt of such salary.…
Among the office holders will be the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Whip, certain Ministers and two Whips. They would be able to get the salaries which are quoted, expenses and an outside income.
The Leader of the House agrees with me that Ministers should not be allowed, directly or indirectly, to receive other income by virtue of their office, nor is it done, and if he were offered a fee to explain this debate on television he would return it. If he discussed it on television with me, I should probably be offered £10 and he would be offered £100, because he is better looking.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. This is getting beyond the Clause.

Mr. Lewis: With respect, the Clause says:
The salary payable to any person under Schedules 1 and 2 to this Act shall be reduced by the amount of any fee or payment he may obtain while in receipt of such salary for writing, or television or radio performances.…
I am giving reasons why the Clause should be read a second time and giving examples of how office-holders can receive, in addition to their salaries, bigger fees than others for appearing on television. All I am saying is that they should be treated alike, fairly and properly. I was explaining, within the terms of the Clause, how I should be offered £10 and the Leader of the House would be offered £100 to debate the Bill on

television. He would rightly refuse it, saying," I am receiving a salary as a Minister, and it is wrong for me to receive this fee." Indeed, the fact is that he would not be offered it. But the man on the other side is also receiving a salary because of his office, not because he is a Member of Parliament, and would get his £100. That cannot be right, morally, politically or on any other basis.
I am not playing party politics, and I am not getting at one side or the other, because we do the same with civil servants. The Leader of the House has a limited staff. If one of his secretaries did a broadcast about his duties, or wrote an article, he would not be allowed to keep the fees. The Leader of the House would rightly say, "You are a civil servant being paid for the job."
A dangerous precedent could be set here. The civil servant could say, "If it's good enough for Mr. X or Mr. Y, why is it not good enough for me?". I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this serious point. The people are passing comments on the situation. The Press has also passed comments, and the situation is wrong. No Minister of the Crown should accept anything that directly or indirectly derives from his office until he has been out of office for, say, two years. Official papers are not revealed for 30 years. My hon. Friend said that it affected him, but with great respect it does not. The new Clause applies not to Members of Parliament but Ministers and office holders.
Unless the Minister can say that he will look at this again, I shall vote even though no other hon. Member supports me.

Question put and negatived.

Schedule 1

MINISTERIAL SALARIES

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 7, leave out '£20,000' and insert '£19,320'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take the following Amendments: No. 3, page


3, line 10. leave out '£13,000' and insert '£9,750'.

No. 4, in line 21, leave out '£7,500—£9,500' and insert '£11,730'.

No. 5, in line 26, leave out '£14,500' and insert '£17,940'.

No. 6, in line 27, leave out '£11,000' and insert '£12,420'.

No. 7, in line 28, leave out '£11,000' and insert '£12,420'.

No. 8, in line 29, leave out '£7,750' and insert '£7,762.50'.

No. 9, in line 31, leave out '£6,500' and insert '£6,210'.

No. 10, in line 32, leave out '£5,500' and insert '£5,175'.

No. 11, in line 35, leave out '£5,000' and insert '£4,554'.

No. 12, in line 37, leave out '£4,500' and insert '£4,140'.

No. 13, in line 39, leave out '£4,000' and insert '£3,640'.

Mr. Lewis: These are Amendments to reduce in some instances the salaries proposed. The Amendments are designed to give Ministers the percentage increase recommended by the Boyle Committee—about 38 per cent.—for Members of Parliament.
I cannot see why, since Ministers of the Crown and other office holders are to get £1,750 a year in addition to the £1,250 tax-free allowance, they should in addition get increases varying from 3 per cent. to as much as 77 per cent. above the increase proposed for Members of Parliament.
I am not against Ministers getting increases; indeed, I have put down Amendments to give increases to some Ministers. Lord Boyle suggested that, as Ministers and Members of Parliament have not had an increase in salary since October, 1964, during which time the cost of living has risen, they should get an increase of 38 per cent. That I accepted and voted for. I think it probably is not fully compensatory for the rise in the cost of living but it is a reasonable compromise.
If the Boyle Committee had suggested a 38 per cent. increase in all these salaries I would not have objected. Some of these figures would have gone up and some would have gone down to keep within the 38 per cent. I should have thought the

Government would have accepted that, since they are anxious to work on the basis of 7 per cent.
Let us look at these proposed increases to see why I am proposing reductions. The Prime Minister receives £14,000 plus £1,250, making £15,250 and I think he gets £4,000 a year tax-free. But that is only £80 a week, not much. It is proposed that he should go up to £20,000 plus £3,000 making £23,000, with £4,000, probably more, tax-free, plus his house, car and all the other emoluments I have mentioned. That is equivalent to a 51 per cent. increase on the original salary. I cannot see how the Leader of the House can say that we must give this increase to the Prime Minister yet we cannot give more than 7 per cent. to the miners.
The Boyle Committee sat last year and did not know that the miners would strike and that the Government would refuse their demands. If it had known that it might have said that the increase should be limited to 38 per cent., the same as for Members. If that had been done we would not be here now.
Turning to senior Cabinet Ministers, they are receiving £8,500 plus £1,250, making £9,750. They go up to £13,000 plus £3,000, making £16,000, plus car and chauffeur. Many of them, excluding the Leader of the House, also receive free coal, lighting—everything that can be thought of. Everything is provided at the taxpayer's expense, with the exception of the clothes they wear. If they have any children they will probably be paying for their education, although they do not have to do so, for they could send their children to a State school and it might be a good thing if they did.
They are having a 64 per cent. increase—an additional 26 per cent. over Members. I do not think it is right and I am sure that the country thinks the same. The Leader of the House says it is no one's fault that this has come on at this time of night. It is certainly not my fault. If this had been publicised there would have been a scream about it. I can imagine the Press, radio and television calling it a bit immoral for the Government to attack the miners, engineers, bricklayers, nurses, the lower-paid, for asking for a few pounds a week more while they are getting an additional £5,000 and £6,000 and they have to pay for nothing out of their


salaries. They have lunches, dinners, receptions, cocktail parties, their houses, coal, fuel, light and cleaning all provided. Anything that one might mention, they have.
1 a.m.
I come then to Ministers other than of Cabinet rank. I do not know why they are not treated so generously. If the arguments used for Ministers of Cabinet rank are right, which I do not accept, why are not Ministers of other than Cabinet rank not treated in the same way? At the moment, they receive £8,500. With their parliamentary allowance, that comes to £9,750. They are to go up to only £9,500, which means, with their £3,000, that they go up to £12,500 in total. They are to get only a 32 per cent. increase.
What logical argument can be advanced in support of a proposal to give a Cabinet Minister an increase of 64 per cent., the Prime Minister an increase of 51 per cent., but a Minister other than of Cabinet rank only 32 per cent.? If they are entitled to all these increases, which I doubt, surely Ministers of other than Cabinet rank should be entitled to claim the same as the Cabinet Minister's 64 per cent., or at least the same as the Prime Minister's 51 per cent. After all, Ministers of other than Cabinet rank do not get houses, flats or cars. They have the use of a car, but not as of right. They do not have the "perks" of office which go with Cabinet rank. Far from getting less, they should get more.
Then I come to certain Treasury Ministers of State and two non-Cabinet Ministers. They receive £7,625 now, plus the £1,250 allowance, a total of £8,875. They are to go up to £9,500, which is the same as the others to whom I have just referred, but with this difference. In this case, the increase is 41 per cent. against the Member's 38 per cent.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury receives £5,625 at present, plus the allowance of £1,250, making £6,875. He is to go up to £7,500, plus his £3,000 allowance, making £10,500. That represents a 53 per cent. increase. Again, I cannot understand why. Surely it should be either a 64 per cent. or a 32 per cent. increase, or whatever the mean average is. Personally, I should settle

for 38 per cent., which is what Members are to get. I believe that there is no difference between the expenses incurred due to the rise, in the cost of living in the salaries of Ministers and those of Members of Parliament.
We come to Parliamentary Secretaries: £3,750 plus £1,250 which is £5,000. That is consolidated up to £5,500, plus £3,000, giving £8,500, which is an increase of 70 per cent.
The Government Chief Whip has not done so badly. I did not realise this. The Patronage Secretary has done pretty well out of it. The Chief Whip was on £5,625 plus his £1,250, so his salary was £6,875. That now goes up to £9,500, plus his £3,000, which is £12,500, giving an increase of 82 per cent.
When the Chief Whip put the Whips on tonight to stop the miners getting more than 7 per cent., he ought to have realised that in April he will be getting an 82 per cent. increase. This is where the unfairness is shown. He gets an increase of 82 per cent., but Ministers other than of Cabinet rank get only 32 per cent. It is not fair shares for all. I believe in the Labour Party's policy of fair shares for all. If he thinks that he is entitled to 82 per cent., he ought to see that others get 82 per cent., or, better still, that all get the 38 per cent. which M.P.s have got.
The Deputy Chief Whip's salary has gone up. He was getting £3,500, plus his allowance of £1,250. His salary has gone up to £5,000, plus £3,000, making £8,000, which is an increase of 76 per cent.
What difference is there between the Government Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip which justifies the differentiation in the percentage increase comparing one with the other? They are both doing the same kind of job. Allowing for the differentiation in salary scales, why should one get an increase of 76 per cent. and the other an increase of 82 per cent.? This applies to the other Whips. I have never been in the Whips' Office. I do not suppose that I ever shall get in, either in Government or in Opposition.

Mr. Michael Foot: My hon. Friend is going the wrong way about it.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is quite right. I have been here long enough to


know that if one wants to get anywhere one has to kowtow, and I would never do that. I have never been in the Whips' Office, so I do not have an interest to declare in the past, the present or the future. I suggest that the other Whips, who receive £3,000, plus £1,250, making £4,250, do most of the day-to-day work. Their salary goes up from £3,000, plus £1,250, to £4,000 plus £3,000, making £7,000 in all. They get an increase of only 65 per cent. Why should they get an increase of only 65 per cent. when the Chief Whip gets an increase of 82 per cent.? Allowing for the differentation in the job, but talking of percentage increases, surely they are entitled to say that they do more of the difficult day-to-day jobs.
I am glad that my hon. Friend is back. He knows that one of my lovelights in the House concerns lawyers and the legal profession. I admire and respect the lawyers in the House for the great work that they do. I am always paying tribute to and supporting them. I am the greatest friend and champion of the legal fraternity in the House and in the country from judges downwards. Therefore, I must come to their aid.
The poor old Attorney-General, with £13,000 plus his £1,250, making £14,250, goes up only to £14,500, and with his £3,000 allowance he is having to make do on £17,500 a year. It is only a 23 per cent. increase. One hon. Member who has left the Chamber said that this was spread since 1964. The Attorney-General has done pretty badly under this Government. I shall plead for him and try to get him more. I would have thought that he would have been here to support me, but he is not. The poor old Attorney-General is a most hard worked man, a regular attender, and the best legal performer we have. I have forgotten the Solicitor-General. The Attorney-General is one of the two best legal performers we have. But he goes up only to £17,500 with a 23 per cent. increase spread over the eight years from 1964 to 1972. That is pretty miserly.

Mr. Thomas Swain: It is 2·75 per cent.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend, who knows the miners' case better than anyone, says that it is 2·75 per cent. It is pretty measly for this Government, who

have given the Prime Minister 51 per cent. and the Chief Whip 82 per cent. The Chief Whip gets between 10 and 11 per cent. per annum on average. All that he and the Prime Minister have done for the learned Attorney-General is to give him 2·75 per cent. It is mean. It is terrible. Probably they thought that he might have been an apprentice miner. They have treated him as shabbily as a miner.

Mr. Swain: He can go on F.I.S.

Mr. Lewis: My proposal for an increase there is much overdue. I should have thought that on this matter at least the Leader of the House would accept my Amendment and say, "Yes, we agree", because here he would not be trying to reduce the figure but trying to bring the Attorney-General to the 38 per cent. level.
I next deal with the Solicitor-General, who receives £9,000 plus £1,250 at present, totalling £10,250. He goes up to £11,000 plus his allowance, making £14,000, which is again only 37 per cent. This man worked night and day dealing with the Industrial Relations Bill—the Bill which was meant to stop strikes. He worked like a Trojan. I never saw the Attorney-General. He was very rarely here. I do not know why. Yet what happens? The Government treat the Solicitor-General so shabbily that they give him only this nominal increase of 37 per cent.
The Lord Advocate is next on the list. We do not often see him here. I think that he is a Member of the House.

Mr. Swain: An absentee landlord.

Mr. Lewis: He is called the Lord Advocate. He does not sit in the other place. He is not a Lord. He sits in the House of Commons, but I never see him here. He does not do much in the way of parliamentary legislation. But in this matter he does better than the Solicitor-General, who worked night and day. I know that because I was here on every occasion. I know how he worked. The Lord Advocate was getting £8,000 plus his £1,250, making £9,250, against the Solicitor-General's £10,250—£1,000 less. Now the Lord Advocate comes up to a par with the Solicitor-General? Why? What does he do? Why should he have


a 51 per cent. increase against the Solicitor-General's 37 per cent.?
If these increases are to compensate for the decreasing purchasing power of the pound or the fall in value of the salaries, why is it that in all these cases the various amounts are so different? In this case the Lord Advocate gets a 51 per cent. increase against a Member's 38 per cent. I will give the answer. The Government have decided that the Lord Advocate, whom we very rarely see is just as good as the Prime Minister.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland is paid £5,625 plus £1,250 at the moment. This will increase to £7,750 plus an allowance of £3,000, an increase of 56 per cent.
1.15 a.m.
I will not say much about Mr. Speaker because, strangely, it is thought infra dig in this House to pass comment on what might be called the establishment. In his case the increase is 64 per cent. He incurs very little expense out of his salary other than for the clothes he wears. The Chairman of Ways and Means has not done too well relatively. It is a pity in view of his work in Committee and in the early hours of the morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale was foretelling the long nights and the battles to come, many of which will affect the Chairman of Ways and Means, who will have an increase of 59 per cent. That is not as good as the Chief Whip, who does not do as much for the House. The Deputy Chairmen now have their £3,750 consolidated with the £1,250. This will increase to £5,500 plus £3,000, making £8,500, an increase of 70 per cent.
In all reasonableness, where is the justification for giving the Chairman of Ways and Means only 59 per cent.? He is a senior man with responsibility and two deputies in his charge, probably doing a more arduous and difficult job. This is crazy. If it happened in the mines there would be strikes all the time.

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman on a point which I mentioned to him earlier. I wanted to be quite sure, and I have had it checked very carefully. The salaries of the Officers of the House are not in the Bill and a discussion of them is not in order on this Question. I do

not wish to be coy about this, but it is a fact.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Sir Robert. I will leave it at that. The Leader of the Opposition's £5,750 will rise to £9,500, plus £3,000 expenses allowance—a 117 per cent. increase. The Opposition Chief Whip—

The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is slipping out of order accidentally: he is going on to the next Amendments. Perhaps he could leave that till later.

Mr. Lewis: Certainly, Sir Robert.
I emphasised at the start that I have no personal animosity against any of the holders of these offices, and was not against their getting increases on the basis of the Boyle Report. I voted for M.P.s' salaries because I thought that 38 per cent. was fair. I am opposing the Ministerial salaries because I can see no reason for some getting increases of 170 per cent. while others get only 13 per cent., especially when some are doing difficult and essential work and others, who get paid more, are doing little or no work in comparison. The Solicitor-General, a hard-working and efficient Minister, did a very good job on the Industrial Relations Bill—too good, for the Government—yet he is treated relatively shabbily.
Nor can I accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the Government have simply accepted the Boyle Report in toto. If that Committee had been appointed to inquire into the miners' dispute and had recommended a 171 per cent. or 50 per cent. increase for any miner, the Government would not have accepted it. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), whom I see in his place, would not have anticipated such a recommendation for the miners. It is clear, therefore, that the Government are adopting two values, one for lower-paid workers and one for occupants of the House of Commons.
Had the Government said, "We agree that hon. Members should get 38 per cent. more and that all Ministers should get the same", I would have been the first to agree, and probably junior Ministers would have got rather more as a result of upgrading by a job evaluation


process. But the same allowances would have been paid to all and the differential that is proposed would not have applied.
Under those conditions the Government could have told the dockers, miners and engineers, "We are treating ourselves as we are treating you. We call on you to follow our lead." But the people will not respond with inaction to what hon. Gentlemen opposite propose, as we have seen from the attitude of the miners. I hope that when it comes to dealing with the nurses, whose claim has gone in today, these facts and figures will be called in aid against the Government.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising, first, that Ministers should be paid the proper rate for the job; and, second, that there should be increases; and third, for saying that he is not casting aspersions on any of the people to whom he has been referring.
Silence on my part does not necessarily mean acceptance of the various points the hon. Gentleman makes about the emoluments and so on relating to any job. In other words, it should not be thought that I agree with the hon. Gentleman simply because I do not rise to correct or argue with any of the points he makes.
The hon. Gentleman believes that Ministers should have the rate for the job and he has tabled various Amendments suggesting certain figures. Having made a careful study of the jobs, the Boyle Committee put down other figures. The Government have accepted the view and figures of this independent body and have recommended them to the Committee. I believe these figures to be right. In some of the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred he did not apply his criterion of job evaluation or reclassification. But it was part of Lord Boyle's recommendations that some posts should be reclassified in the way the hon. Gentleman suggested.
1.30 a.m.
Once the hon. Gentleman accepts that Ministers should be paid the rate for the job, it becomes a question of exactly what that figure should be. The independent review body decided on certain figures and recommended these quite independently. The Government felt that it was right to accept in full what the review

body said and to recommend it to the House. I still feel, having heard the hon. Gentleman, that the figures put forward by Lord Boyle's Review Body are right, and I ask the Committee to accept them. For that reason, having appreciated the points which the hon. Gentleman put forward, I could not accept his Amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule I agreed to.

Schedule 2

OPPOSITION LEADERS AND WHIPS

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 4, line 34, leave out '£9,500' and insert '£6,210'.

The Chairman: With this Amendment we are to take the following:

Amendment No. 22, in page 4, line 35, leave out '£7,500' and insert '£5,175'.

Amendment No. 23, in line 36, leave out '£4,000' and insert £4,485'.

Amendment No. 24, in line 38, leave out '£3,500' and insert '£2,760'.

Amendment No. 25, in line 39, leave out '£2,500' and insert '£2,070'.

Mr. Lewis: I think that these Amendments emphasise the case that I have been making. The Leader of the House cannot, in this instance, use the argument about revaluation and reclassification because, with the exception of the extra Whips, there is no change in the situation. Salary increases are proposed, in one instance of 117 per cent., and in the other of 110 per cent., on basic salaries, plus the extra £1,750, plus a number of other ancillary benefits. I do not think that any Opposition appointment is worth a salary of this magnitude when I know that there are many additions to it. I do not think that taxpayers should be asked to meet this cost.
I have doubts about whether the taxpayer should be asked to meet the cost of the salaries of some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is nothing personal about this. They are fit and proper persons to do the job, but they are there only temporarily. There will come a time when the Leader of the House will be the Shadow Leader. I shall not say whether he will be Shadow


Leader, or Shadow Leader of the House. It may be either. I should prefer the right hon. Gentleman to be the Opposition Leader, or the Shadow Prime Minister. He would be a much better Opposition Leader than the present Prime Minister would. It would be better for the country and for the Tory Party if the Leader of the House became the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Swain: That is not saying much.

Mr. Lewis: That may be so, but he would be the better choice. I have to decide whether to allow him to have a salary which is higher than that received by some Ministers, plus a car, a chauffeur and running expenses, which together are worth between £2,000 and £3,000.
The present Patronage Secretary will come over and be on a salary of £10,500, which will be higher than that of the Government Deputy Chief Whip, higher than the other Whips and Parliamentary Secretaries and much higher than many Ministers. I want to emphasise that there is no limitation on their outside earnings as a result of their office, whereas there is on those in the Government who will then be my right hon. Friends.
I would say this on principle whether it is my hon. Friends or hon. Members opposite who are concerned. My objection is in principle, even when it is my right hon. and hon. Friends, whom I admire and support, and even when the present Leader of the House will be Leader of the Opposition and the Patronage Secretary will be Opposition Chief Whip.
I think that the Patronage Secretary —and I have nothing against him, although politically I do not think he is the best chap for the job—should get a rate which should be a little more than an M.P.'s salary—say about £1,000 or £2.000 above, knowing that they could get this outside. If it were to be said to me, "We agree that in this case they should be put on the same basis as all other office holders", then all other office holders are barred from receiving fees or earnings other than interest on shares or capital investment. They are not allowed, as Ministers, or Government office holders, to receive outside income. If that principle applies to Government office holders, it must surely apply to

those Opposition posts, or their salaries should be reduced to compensate for those earnings.
This was why Members of Parliament were told that they were not paid a full time salary—because some are only part time and do outside work and therefore their salaries are reduced because the job is not full time. But Ministers are full time and their salaries are full time. We have no control and will have no control over the Opposition office holders, whoever they are. We cannot say whether they should or should not do this, that or the other.
I can put down a Question, and occasionally do, asking the Leader of the House what he is doing in the next week in connection with his job or I can question whether he is doing anything wrong with his office or whether he is perhaps taking liberties. But I cannot do that when the right hon. Gentleman is in Opposition. I shall be paying him, as a taxpayer, £12,500 salary, and voting him that amount, plus his car and chauffeur, but I shall not be able in any way to check him, and I do not think that is right. I hope that the Leader of the House will tell me that this is a matter which can and should be looked at. I am not personalising this, as I said earlier when discussing the Prime Minister. It may be that this money could go into a charitable fund. Let it go to a fund for disabled officers of the House. All office holders should be treated properly and fairly so that we do not differentiate between persons who are one day in Government and the next day in Opposition.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) began by saying that I could not pray in aid re-classification of the jobs concerned by Lord Boyle's Review Body. In this case that is exactly what I can do. The Review Body considered the position of the Leader of the Opposition, his responsibilities, the amount of work he had as Leader of Opposition in the House, his office expenditure, and his considerable responsibilities. Having examined all these matters, the Review Body came to the conclusion that the figure proposed in the Bill was the right salary for the Leader of the Opposition.
The Review Body then considered the position of the Opposition Chief Whip, and his responsibilities for the conduct of the business of the House. Having considered that and the considerable amount of time that he must spend in the building—absolutely full time, as I know from my six years experience of that post—the Review Body decided that this was the proper salary for the Opposition Chief Whip.
Similarly, after consideration the Review Body decided after consideration that it was right that two of the Opposition Whips, in recognition of the amount of work that they do in the House, should be paid. The salaries proposed in the Bill for these two Whips are in accordance with the recommendations of the Review Body.
This was the result of a re-classification and a re-consideration of the jabs and their responsibilities. Having considered these matters, the Review Body made its proposals. I believe that the proposals are right. I therefore commend them to the House. Once again, I fear that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Swain: Does the Leader of the House agree that in 1964, when the Labour Government implemented the Lawrence Committee's Report, in toto as regards the salaries of ordinary Members, the then Prime Minister decided in the interests of the economy to implement only 50 per cent. of the recommended increase for Ministers?

Mr. Whitelaw: These Amendments concern the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition Chief Whip, and two other Opposition Whips and had nothing to do with Ministers.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

PROVISIONS RE-ENACTED FROM PREVIOUS ACT

Question proposed That this Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Because of my lack of understanding of parliamentary appreciation, I seek an explanation of the

Schedule from the Minister. It says in line 30:
A person to whom any salary is payable under section 1(1) of this Act shall be entitled to receive only one such salary, but if he is the holder of two or more offices in respect of which a salary is so payable and there is a difference between the salaries payable in respect of those offices, the office in respect of which a salary is payable to him shall be that in respect of which the highest salary is payable.
Does this apply to the tax-free expense allowance of members of another place? They have a marvellous pension for life. In order to qualify for their £8.50 per day tax free, all they have to do is to show their nose in the Lords, say, "I am here" and then go to dine at the Savoy or the Ritz. Many people have put in applications for this job. A former Leader of the House is quoted in the Press today as having said that he would like to put his name down for it.
1.45 a.m.
The office holders with whom I am dealing are entitled to receive £8.50 a day in addition to their salary. I know that they cannot hold two or more offices, but, in addition to their £8.50 a day, they receive large directorship fees, have State board jobs, full time or part time, and pensions as ex-Members of the House. This can amount to a lot of money. Lord Robens was receiving £20,000 as Chairman of the National Coal Board. He has now ceased to be a Socialist—in fact, I did not know that he was one—and has become a director in several large business concerns from which he receives much more money than when he was Chairman of the Coal Board. If he "sucks up", to use the Army vernacular, to the Tory Government and they give him a job in the Government, will he still be able to draw his large pension from the Coal Board? That would be wrong, and I do not see why it should happen. Many members of the House of Lords who receive the £8.50 a day have never done a day's work, and they do not intend to do a day's work. If a teacher, civil servant or old age pensioner takes on another job, his pension is reduced pro tanto. I do not know what the new pension is for ex-Prime Ministers. It used to be £4,000 a year. I do not think it right that an ex-Prime Minister can become a lord and draw his pension and the salary for one of these jobs.
May I be assured that once someone has taken up an office the provisions about two salaries not being payable will apply to all forms of income, whether actual salary or the equivalent in the form of pension payments? It would be unfair if ex-Ministers, including ex-Prime Ministers, in effect receive two salaries while retired school teachers and others are precluded from taking State or local government employment without having their pension reduced pro tanto.
In our previous discussion about Ministerial pensions we were told that they were not pensions but deferred salaries. I hope that the Minister can tell us that those concerned will not receive two incomes, because that could have a deleterious effect upon the wages and prices policy the Government are now trying to impose on the people.

Mr. David Howell: Paragraph 2 covers the question of duplicate salaries, and refers to Ministerial salaries. The provision in it is necessary to prevent a member of the Government receiving more than one salary payable under the Bill, but it allows him to receive the higher salary where he holds more than one Ministerial office. Ministers in the Lords do not receive the additional attendance allowance.
A Minister continuing to serve in a Ministerial post and receiving a Ministerial salary would not receive the pension to which earlier service in some other Ministerial office might have entitled him until such time as he retired from that post.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.

1.56 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Through a slip on my part I was unable to raise in Committee several points on Clause 1 and I should like to do so now.
Clause 1(2) reads as follows:
(2) There shall be paid to the Lord Chancellor a salary (which shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the

United Kingdom) at such rate as together with the salary payable to him as Speaker of the House of Lords will amount to £20,000 a year, but so that the salary payable to a Lord Chancellor under this subsection shall be abated by the amount of any pension payable to him in respect of any public office in the United Kingdom or elsewhere to which he had previously been appointed or elected.
I have doubts on the last two or three words, and I should like an assurance that my good friend the noble Lord Lord Hailsham is not being unfairly treated. I agree that his salary should be abated by any pension payable to him in respect of any public office in the United Kingdom. It would be unfair if a former Prime Minister who became Lord Chancellor received in addition to his £20,000 a year his pension of £4,000. I understand from what the Minister has said that this would not be permitted. It would be equally unfair if the Lord Chancellor were to receive any other pension in respect of any other public office. I did not put down an Amendment on this because it might have been thought that I was trying to delay proceedings, and that is not my endeavour.
It is a pity that there is not a lawyer on the Front Bench to help us. I think probably the Leader of the House trained as a lawyer—

Mr. Whitelaw: No.

Mr. Lewis: I apologise. I would not knowingly have insulted the right hon. Gentleman. I withdraw my remark and ask him to forgive me. Nevertheless, someone must speak for the lawyers. A Lord Chancellor may previously have been appointed chairman of the I.C.I. and be getting an I.C.I. pension.

Mr. Whitelaw: The Bill refers to
… any public office in the United Kingdom or elsewhere …".

Mr. Lewis: Yes, it refers to "any public office". That leads me to my next point. Suppose a man has worked most of his life as a town clerk or a solicitor with a local authority and then decides to go on pension. He enters the House, goes to the other place eventually, and becomes Lord Chancellor. As I understand it, he would have to relinquish his pension because he was previously in an appointed position. That is not fair because he may have paid in for that pension.


The Bill says:
… to which he had been appointed or elected.
A man could have been elected to a public position in the United Kingdom from which there is a payment or pension due. The Bill speaks of "any public office." A governor of one of the islands might retire and enter Parliament and eventually become Lord Chancellor. He would be precluded from receiving his pension.
Suppose the Leader of the House had been a town clerk for 30 years before becoming an M.P. I believe I am right in saying that he would be entitled to receive his pension in addition to his parliamentary salary. If he received an Army pension he would be able to continue drawing that while receiving his parliamentary salary. But the Lord Chancellor could not. Every other Minister, from the Prime Minister downwards, could draw whatever pensions they were entitled to, except the Lord Chancellor.
Let us take the case of the present Solicitor-General, whom we all know to be an extremely able and hard-working man. Let us assume that, before coming to this House, he held an appointment as a town clerk. Let us assume, further, that he gets his pension and becomes Solicitor-General. I think that he could still get his pension, in addition to his salary as Solicitor-General. However, if subsequently he became Lord Chancellor, he would be told to drop his pension because he would be covered by this Measure which provides that, as he had, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, a job to which he was appointed or elected previously, he must give up that pension. I do not think that that is fair. I hope to hear from another place that I am right, and who better than the present Lord Chancellor to give us a legal opinion on it and, if it is wrong, to put the matter right?
I turn next to subsection (4). I cannot accept that this is right. If the Bill is not amended, we shall have a situation in future where we shall be denied the opportunity of an interesting debate like the present one. Any alterations in the future will be done by Orders in Council. The Leader of the House told us earlier that we could have another Committee like Lord Boyle's and a report from it,

but that would mean that any alterations could be made without any Bill coming before the House. We should have no chance of making Amendments, and I should not, be able to make the valuable points that I have made about the present Bill. I should not be able to point out how unfairly the Government have treated some of their Ministers. I should not be able to defend the legal profession. I should not be able to say that the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General should have larger increases. All that I could do is vote for or against the Government's proposals. I should not be able to amend them.
That cannot be right. I think that I have proved that the Government have slipped up in this Bill. It may be that some of the Law Officers of the Crown will find that they are not getting enough in comparison and that they want increases. In such a case, the Government may make other proposals, which again I shall have no chance to amend.
I cannot agree that we should allow subsection (4) to go through as it stands without at least the opportunity to say that it goes through without my support. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), I believe that we are entitled to debate and vote upon proposals of this kind. My hon. Friend also said that he hoped that I would pack up early, since I should not be precluded in the future. But I shall be precluded. The Bill now goes forward on Third Reading, and no hon. Member will have an opportunity to put down Amendments to future Ministerial and Other Salaries Bills because there will be no such Bills in the future. There will be Orders in Council. We shall either accept or reject them, and that will be that.
I come to the Schedules. I am not now able to put forward any suggestions for Amendment because, on Third Reading, I can discuss only what is in the Bill. Looking at Part IV, which I have not so far mentioned, I cannot for the life of me understand why the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms should get £6,500 a year. Why should a non-elected person not responsible to the electorate get £6,500 a year? I cannot accept that.
Parliamentary Secretaries other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the


Treasury are to get £5,500. I cannot accept that.
The Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard is to get £5,000. He has a lovely, flowery title. He may be entitled to the money because of his flowery title. Again, I cannot accept that.
Lord in Waiting, £5,000. The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, the Junior Lord of the Treasury and the Assistant Whip, House of Commons, are to get £4,000. Earlier I complained about what I termed the inadequacy of the salaries of some Ministers. I cannot agree that it is right that those whom I have just mentioned, from the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household to the Junior Lord of the Treasury, should get £4,000 a year, which is the same salary as an Assistant Whip in the House of Commons. I am glad that the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip is here.

Mr. Walter Harrison: He is always here.

Mr. Lewis: And he is elected.

Mr. Whitelaw: So is the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household.

Mr. Lewis: I am not so sure that he is always here.
Then we come to a whole list of salaries in Schedule 2. I have something to say here, because one does not often get a chance to discuss anything to do with the House of Lords, which is rather a pity. In the House of Lords we have the Leader of the Opposition at £3,500 a year and the Chief Opposition Whip at £2,500. Again, these are non-elected persons who are not responsible to the electorate. I am not sure that the salaries paid there are reasonable for the work that they do in the House of Lords. Therefore, I cannot agree to the salaries stated there.
I turn now to the provision against duplicate salaries in Schedule 3;
A person to whom any salary is payable … shall be entitled to receive only one such salary.
I hope that we can get clear whether this applies to what I term the ancillary

types of jobs which go in the Lords. Some of their Lordships get part-time jobs on some of the boards. I think that I am right in saying that they would not, therefore, be entitled to claim or maintain those salaries. Now they have to choose one or the other, but only one salary.
The Schedule reads,
if he is the holder of two or more offices".
It could apply to other offices. It does not state precisely whether it is an office of profit under the Crown, such as a Minister, or an office of profit under the Crown in one of various other jobs. We could have an anachronism here. A person holding an office of profit at, say, £20,000 a year could take a job as a Minister at £3,500 a year in the Lords or in the Commons and say: "I will take the higher salary. I can then get round the Government's policy by maintaining my other higher salary for the higher-paid job and take on the lower-paid job as junior Minister", or whatever it may be. I do not think that is intended, but as I read it that could happen.
Therefore, for the reasons that I have mentioned I cannot agree to give an unopposed Third Reading to the Bill.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall seek to answer the points which the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has raised.
The first case the hon. Member has raised is under Clause 1(2) regarding the position of the Lord Chancellor, and in particular the words of the subsection
a salary … shall be abated by the amount of any pension payable to him in respect of any public office in the United Kingdom or elsewhere to which he had previously been appointed or elected.
The reason for this particular provision in the case of the Lord Chancellor is that he is in an exceptional position in that he is not only a Minister but he is head of the judiciary. His salary is therefore paid in the same way as judges' salaries are paid. Therefore, this particular subsection repeats the provision in Section 4 of the Judges' Remuneration Act, 1965, which is applicable to judges generally. It is because the Lord Chancellor is treated as head of the judiciary, and therefore on the same basis as one of the judges, that his salary has the


same provision attached to it as is attached to the salaries of judges. That is the reason for that particular provision concerning the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Lewis: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a judge who was an Army officer, or even the present Lord Chancellor—who, I think, is an ex-Army officer—and received a pension would have to forgo that? Do they have to forgo it? As it is set out in the Bill, they would have to do that, and that is unfair.

Mr. Whitelaw: The provision in the Judges' Remuneration Act is directed to their particular positions, for example, as the recorder of a particular town, I understand. As to the hon. Gentleman's particular point about pensions, I shall be pleased to look into that and write to the hon. Gentleman. But that is the reason why the provision is in the Bill as it stands.
Then the hon. Gentleman comes to Schedule 1, Part IV. He asks, for example, why the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms should be paid £6,500 a year. He will appreciate that this is the title given to the Government Chief Whip in the House of Lords. He is therefore paid as the Government Chief Whip in the House of Lords. Similarly, the Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard is the Deputy Chief Whip in the House of Lords. As for the Lords in Waiting, they are the Government Whips in the House of Lords and also speak in the House of Lords in answer to various debates.
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is under a misconception about the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household and the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, both of whom are Government Whips in the House of Commons and, therefore, are elected. The hon. Gentleman thought that they were not elected. My hon. Friends concerned are Members of this House and are Government Whips. These are the titles that are given to them.
The hon. Gentleman does not agree that in future Ministerial salaries should be dealt with by Order in Council rather than by a Bill. But I believe it is the general view of the House that this is the right way of doing it for the future.

I think that it is a reasonable provision. I accept that I shall not carry the hon. Gentleman with me in that, but I hold to my view that it is a reasonable provision.
As to the duplicate salary to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I think that my hon. Friend has already explained that position to him. If there is anything further that the hon. Gentleman wishes, beyond what my hon. Friend has said, and if the point is put to me, I should be only too pleased to seek to answer it.
We have had a long debate on the Bill. As has been said, the hon. Member for West Ham, North has exercised his undoubted right in probing in great detail the Bill's various provisions. I believe that the Bill is right. I hope that the House will accept it, and I therefore hope that it will be given a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

MINERAL EXPLORATION AND INVESTMENT AND BUILDING GRANTS AMENDMENT BILL (changed from Mineral Exploration, etc. Bill)

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

CONTRIBUTIONS IN RESPECT OF MINERAL EXPLORATION

2.20 a.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I beg to move, Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 14, leave out '£25 million' and insert '£20 million'.
I apologise for having to speak to this Amendment at such a late hour but I was not on the Standing Committee and the subjects covered by the Bill have caused a certain amount of disquiet in my constituency. The Government are taking powers to make grants initially up to £25 million for searching for, for discovering and for testing mineral deposits. Trouble has arisen in my constituency over the search for oil and natural gas. I have received a number of complaints from my constituents, one of whom wrote


about the exploding of charges of dynamite strong enough to shake the house. Even the local clergy have weighed in on the subject and at a chapter meeting of the Beaminster Deanery on 25th November the following resolution was accepted and the rural dean and members requested that I be told that:
This chapter expresses its concern at the activities of the oil companies in this area. We call the attention of our Members of Parliament and the Ministry of the Environment so that the amenities of this lovely part of England may be preserved for posterity.
The Minister is seeking power not only to allow this process to continue but to advance Government money to those who are causing the trouble. Is there due coordination with the Department of the Environment? There is now a great deal of concern about the environment but we can see very little relationship between what is being done in the Bill and what the Department of the Environment is doing.
No planning permission is required before the research activities with their explosions begin. It is not necessary for those concerned to consult the local water authorities, although boreholes are sunk deep into the ground, upsetting springs and, in an area like West Dorset with underground lakes, perhaps endangering water supplies for many years to come.
So many of the areas concerned in this research are either national parks or areas designated as of outstanding natural beauty. Many interesting places are in the vicinity and there is a grave danger that there will be too much exploration there. Some of the research and exploration activities will not cause serious suffering to the environment. Others, like open-cast mining, if it gets to that stage, will cause serious scars on the landscape which will detract from these areas.
It is difficult to elicit information from the Ministry, but it appears that, since June, 1970, 18 licences have been granted. The Minister could not say how many of these affect national parks, although he admitted that some did. For these licences, the paltry sum of £11,000 was realised, against an estimated public spending in future of £25 million.
The smaller petrol companies appear to have been encouraged. If a company does not exercise rights which it has been

granted over a certain area within six years, those rights go to someone else. The larger companies have lost interest in certain areas and the smaller companies are now being brought in.
The Minister's argument has been the shortage of minerals and the need to export so many of them. The price of base metals, however, has fallen very low—low enough in Chile to damage the whole economy. The economics of mining, where metal is very low in the ground, have altered a great deal.
I question whether some of these areas, which have been considered and then neglected by the big companies, are as valuable as the Minister appears to think. In my own area, the area of Bridport Sands is of interest for petroleum and natural gas. It does not reach to Bridport, but centres around Kimmeridge, in the Minister's own constituency of Bournemouth, West. But none of these experiments has been going on there, although it is possible to prospect in a big city for petroleum and natural gas, as was done in West Berlin. So perhaps the Minister will direct his attention to his own constituents and leave mine alone for a time.
Are the really worth-while mining companies so short of cash after all? I see little evidence of this in their annual accounts. There is a great danger among the smaller companies of the kind of tax fiddle which bedevilled investment grants under the previous Government, and which led to their introducing special legislation on the subject. The Amendment is an attempt to secure an undertaking that this amount is necessary. It needs justification.

2.30 a.m.

Miss J. M. Quennell: My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) has done the House a service in moving this Amendment, for at no part of our proceedings have we been told why £25 million was written into the Bill on Second Reading and why the total sum to be made available by way of Ministerial Order has been doubled and now stands at £50 million.
At various times we have had from the Minister a hint to the effect that the underlying reason is the need to provide this country with a geological survey, but


what a price to pay. Is that the sole reason?
Nor have we been told why the arbitrary figure of 35 per cent. appears in the Bill in relation to exploration costs. This seems an odd figure, bearing in mind the one-third or one-quarter that is normally written in as the proportion of cost for this purpose. Because this percentage has never been explained, my hon. Friend has done the House a service in bringing the matter to the attention of the Minister.
In connection with the need for the sums of money mentioned in the Bill, an interesting article appeared in the November issue of Investors Chronicle by Mr. Christopher Stobart, who analysed the structure of the Anglo-American Company of South Africa, one of the biggest finance houses in the world. I recommend a study of the interrelationships of this company and its inter-penetration of the holdings of other companies as illustrated in that article.
Because of the lateness of the hour and the time taken by our previous business I will not delay hon. Members by quoting from the article, except to point out that Charter Consolidated. Rio Tinto Zinc, the Union Corporation and Selection Trust are all inter-related in many ways. This information sent me looking at the annual reports of some of those companies to see just how broke they were, poor things—in other words, how much they were in need of help from the taxpayer's pocket.
I looked first at the 84th annual report of Consolidated Gold Fields Ltd. At the end of 1971 its reserves stood at £82,900,000, which represented a rise over the previous year, when they stood at a mere £81,529,000. It is interesting to note that in that year the new tin mine, Wheal Jane, was opened in Cornwall, and that project cost Gold Fields some £5 million spread over six years. Nevertheless, the reserves rose, and very conveniently, too.
I was even more amazed by the Chairman's review of the Company's affairs. This document comes out separately from the annual report. The Chairman of Consolidated Gold Fields made a passing reference to the preservation and con-

servation of the environment in a rather touching manner. He said:
Preservation and conservation of the environment is another subject which is properly attracting more and more public attention worldwide. As an international company we are very conscious of our responsibilities in this field. Rehabilitation of mined-out areas … has been in progress for several years.
He went on to say:
Companies within this Group have been leaders in both these developments. In this country in co-operation with local authorities and other bodies, Amalgamated Road-stone—
a subsidiary—
is active in land restoration and in schemes designed to protect our heritage of wild bird life.
He comments on the previous page that the contribution of Consolidated Gold Fields operations in the United Kingdom amounted to 19 per cent. of the group's revenue. Amalgamated Roadstone achieved a sharp advance in profits and further strengthened its position within the industry. Turnover increased by 19 per cent. and net profit rose by 73 per cent.
We have the rather beguiling spectacle of public money being used to encourage one group of subsidiaries within this group to make a mess, while another bunch of subsidiaries within the group is handsomely reaping a profit from the mess made by the other group. As a use of public funds, I find that a rather intriguing prospect. If one looks at the reserves of Charter Consolidated, as shown in the annual report and accounts for 1971, again, poor dears, one finds that the company is a little hard pressed. Its revenue reserves are no less than £76,892,000, but that is not a large amount. Union Corporation have a revenue reserve expressed in rands of £39,839,000. I quote those figures merely because it seems of some importance that we should bear in mind that these big mining companies are hardly on the breadline.
We should also bear in mind that mineralised regions are mainly in development areas, and these areas mining work qualifies for free depreciation, anyway. There is a substantial advantage to companies in this country in pursuing their commercial activities there, and we need to have an explanation why we have


selected this figure of 35 per cent. We have not been given that explanation, and that is why I think that my hon. Friend's Amendments to reduce the capital sum have done a service to the House.

Mr. Alan Williams: I think that the Minister has a duty to answer the questions which have been asked by his hon. Friends.
It is worth pointing out that the mineral industry is, by its very nature, international in its investment decisions, and therefore is international in the criteria it adopts in deciding whether it will undertake investment in any given locality. Consequently, it is not just the availability of the mineral but the political stability of the area and the incentives offered in various countries that are taken into account.
I remember, either in Committee or on Second Reading, making the point that one of the major companies at the time of the investment grant regime listed Britain as the fourth most favourable area in the world from an investment point of view. For that reason I support the idea of a grant for the mineral industry, and that the precise level has to be considered, in part at least, in relation to the levels of the incentives that are being offered by other countries competing for mineral development.
The second point to bear in mind is that free depreciation is not a relevant consideration at the exploration stage in mineral operations, and it would not be a particularly relevant incentive to offer.
The third point to bear in mind is that the industry is by nature a long-lead industry, and there are speculative elements in it. The Minister gave us the figure of about one in ten exploration ventures achieving anything materially significant. In that sense, this is speculative. One has a low rate of success to failure. It is a long road in any case, talking in terms of a decade between the time of the initial decision to undertake research and exploration and the time of converting it—in the one case in ten in which that proves worthwhile—to something yielding a return to the business. That is why I think the hon. Member for Dorset. West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), in a speech of many

valuable points, did not fully appreciate the difficulty of a company in looking at current world prices. The hon. Member quoted the current slump in certain prices, but when a producer is having to plan new production in 10-year future cycles, the current fluctuation in world prices becomes less significant.
It is important to stress that we support the mining grant. We think it necessary, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) that there are questions which could usefully be answered about the £25 million, £50 million and 35 per cent. figures.

The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): At the outset I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) how sorry I am that he and his constituents have had an unfortunate series of experiences in relation to exploration work which has been taking place there. He has effectively brought to my attention by means of Parliamentary Questions, correspondence and direct representation, and in parliamentary debates, the strength of the feelings of those who have been affected in a variety of ways in his constituency. As a result of this, as he knows, I have looked into the episodes as thoroughly as I have been able to do and I think that the company concerned has probably taken careful note of any procedural arrangements which had gone astray there so far. I know that they have also gone out of their way to try to put right, in terms of their relationship with individuals concerned to a material extent, where things have gone wrong and where disturbance has been caused. I know that this could not possibly satisfy every case in question. He mentioned the matter of the water well which has dried up and I know that that is being looked at very closely—not the well but the question of trying to provide an alternative source of water supply if the well cannot be reactivated.
This company has not always had a bad record of this kind. It is a very experienced company and I do not know what has gone wrong in this case, but in one or two instances which have been minor, they have been slightly exaggerated, but in other cases they have been straightforward errors and it is


right that people should have protested. I assure my hon. Friend that what has happened in his constituency has not been the general experience and that there will not be a repetition of these episodes.
2.45 a.m.
These are activities in the search for hydrocarbons—oil and gas—authorised by licence issued under the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934. Even if the Bill had been on the Statute Book, and even if the scheme which I announced in July had been in operation, it would not have affected the work which was going on in my hon. Friend's constituency: those operations would have been outside the scheme.
There is no intention under present circumstances to bring oil and hydrocarbon exploration work within the scheme, because it is evident from the amount of activity going on in that sphere that there is no need to stimulate it or to give it further encouragement. Therefore, the scheme is deliberately limited to minerals which are of economic significance to Britain but for which there appears to be at present insufficient stimulus available to interest the exploration companies to engage in the process of searching for the deposits in Britain.
The licensing arrangements under the Petroleum (Production) Act make it necessary for companies holding these licences to accord with all the appropriate planning procedures where they apply and also to pay attention to the requirement under the Water Resources Act, 1963, to give notice to the appropriate river authority where a mineral operator proposes to sink a bore hole to search for or to work minerals.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Could not my hon. Friend encourage the smaller companies to do what the big companies such as B.P. do, which is to have the courtesy to contact local planners and the local water authority before they move in, even though there may not be a statutory requirement at that stage that they should obtain planning consent? Such action leads to much better relations.

Sir J. Eden: I take that point. If there is anything I can do to encourage the proper observance of these requirements, I shall certainly attend to it.
In relation to the operation of this scheme special guidance notes have been issued for industry. These notes will be revised and brought up to date in the light of the debates which have taken place in the House and those which are to take place in another place, so that when the Bill reaches the Statute Book the guidance notes will have been revised and full account taken of the points which have been raised. The availability of these guidance notes on the scheme will help to advance the state of knowledge of the planning procedure requirements in relation to the whole range of exploration for mineral resources.
My hon. Friend was reassured by an answer he received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment last November, when my right hon. Friend said this:
Those types of exploration which may cause damage to the environment would normally be of such a nature as to constitute development and would need planning permission." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 369.]
There is a small grey area about which it is difficult to be precise.
The process of exploration can take a variety of forms. There are the geochemical and geophysical tests which involve simply analysis of soil and water samples. These are purely test-tube operations. Then there is seismic testing, which is a specialised form of geophysics and it is very seldom if ever employed to search for the sort of minerals which will be assisted under the Bill, but it is used normally for the detection of petroleum deposits—and it is probably seismic testing with which my hon. Friend is particularly concerned. The process involves the insertion of small explosive charges just below the earth's surface which are detonated, and instruments are used to measure the passage of seismic waves through the earth. In addition, boreholes may be drilled where favourable information has been obtained by either of the first two methods I have mentioned and it is necessary to verify and locate more precisely the mineral deposits which have been identified.
The question of exploration, by its nature, is transient. It is not a permanently established structure or anything of that kind. Some of the damage


which my hon. Friend's constituents have suffered has been due, not to seismic testing and explosions, but to the use of heavy vehicles and the dirt, confusion and damage which they have caused. But the situation can be restored.
I wish to answer some of the specific points raised by the Amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) referred to the figure of 35 per cent. There is no magic about the figure. It is believed that it would constitute an adequate incentive, and since the whole purpose of the scheme is to provide an incentive it was right to try to gear the matter so that it would achieve the objective without going too far. It is a matter of balance. I readily accept that it is a bit of a guess, but I hope that it is right. I think it is probably right, judging by the amount of interest which has been shown.
If the Amendments were accepted—and I recognise that they are probing Amendments—they would curtail the life of the scheme by 20 per cent., or roughly from 10 to eight years. It is impossible to forecast the response of individual companies. The success and failure rate of projects will very substantially influence the demand for assistance under the scheme. From the number of schemes which are in the pipeline, together with those which we can reasonably expect, it is fair to assume a take-up rate averaging £5 million a year. It might be less in the early years and probably more in the later years as the scheme gathers momentum. The likely cost of each project must be considered in arriving at a judgment. For example, one recent project cost £1 million—and that is just for exploration. The cost could even be as much as £5 million.
There is also the question of the length of time the exploration projects may take. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) for the points he helpfully enumerated, which I entirely endorse, and in which he touched on this aspect, that the projects may take five years or more, and some of them considerably longer. I emphasise that this is simply the exploration stage, so it seems right that there should be a minimum period for the operation of the scheme of about 10 years—in other words, on the basis of

£5 million a year for 10 years, that £50 million should be made available for this purpose.
What we are seeking to do is to provide an incentive that will encourage exploration to a level where it will develop its own self-sustaining momentum. This will not happen until some major successes have been achieved. Given that in the nature of mineral exploration only a small proportion of projects succeed in finding a viable deposit, we judge that at least £25 million will be required in the first instance. After that has been spent we shall be in a much better position to see what further expenditure may be needed. It is for that purpose that provision is made in the Bill for a further £25 million, subject to order to be approved by the House. Hon. Members will then have an opportunity of stating their views on what additional sums might be needed.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will my hon. Friend deal with the points about the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty? There has been a great deal of anxiety about them.

Sir J. Eden: I hesitate to do that simply because there was an Amendment on the Order Paper that has not been selected, and I suspect that the reason for its non-selection was that we had given the matter considerable attention in Standing Committee. My hon. Friend will have seen the extent to which it was covered there. For a long time there has been exploration for, and working of, mineral resources in our national parks. It is not the intention of this scheme to prevent that from happening. Successive Governments have recognised that a particularly strong case is needed before allowing major development proposals in a national park. Recently my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment refused permission for exploration work to proceed in a national park. It is a matter of balance. It is not my intention and it is not the intention behind the scheme to lead to any sort of widespread desecration of the beauty spots, certainly not the national parks or the nature reserves. But we need to know the location of the country's mineral resources. Once we have that knowledge we can weigh up, through the proper planning procedures,


the balance of national interest and set the value of the mineral resources capable of exploitation against the undoubted value of the beauty of the landscape which might in that process be desecrated. This is a judgment which is properly left to the processes of planning and not one which comes within the purview of the Bill.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.0 a.m.

Sir J. Eden: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 19, at end insert:
(3) It shall be a condition for the making of a contribution in pursuance of this section in respect of any operations that the person applying for the contribution shall have agreed that geological information obtained in the carrying out of the operations will be communicated (in appropriate form and detail) to the Secretary of State and, for the purposes of the geological survey of Great Britain, to the Natural Environment Research Council.
During Committee stage I said that I would seek to move an Amendment to deal with the points made in debate by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) on the question of the provision of information. The hon. Member's concern, with which I expressed sympathy at the time, was that the requirement for an applicant company to make available to the Government geological information arising from an assisted project should be written into the Bill rather than be dealt with on a contractual basis only. The Amendment takes care of that point. It provides that the information should be made available in a form acceptable to the Government and that such information will be passed to the body responsible for the geological survey of this country.

Mr. Alan Williams: I thank the Minister for bringing forward this Amendment. It is, as he said, the consequence of an Amendment moved by me in Committee. I think we were right in our judgment then that, since the contents of the contract were utterly at the discretion of the Minister, there was an element of doubt about the availability of information from exploration activities in the indefinite future. The Amendment meets the requirements of the Committee. Many

of the Minister's hon. Friends at the time were sympathetic to the move we had made, and I thank him for moving this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 4, after 'expenditure', insert:
'in the case of British companies or 20 per cent. of that expenditure in the case of foreign companies or their British subsidies'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): It will be convenient to take also Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 9, at end insert:
'and, in the case of foreign companies or their British subsidiaries, terms limiting the percentage of any subsequent profits to be eligible to be remitted overseas'.
and Amendment No. 8, in line 18, after 'Parliament', insert:
'and such report shall include a statement on the action of recipient companies in transmitting funds overseas'.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: The Minister has been at pains to say in justifying the Bill how important it is to save foreign currency and to exploit our own resources. It is one thing to encourage British companies to mine in Great Britain, but it is another thing to encourage foreign controlled companies to come here and mine and he allowed to take away 85 per cent. of the proceeds, only 15 per cent. remaining in this country. If it is a valid argument that the object of the exercise is to save foreign currency, we must look a little more closely at what is happening.
The only oil well in this country is in Kimmeridge in Dorset, and it is being exploited by B.P., so those considerations do not arise. But with some of the small companies which are moving into the less likely areas which have been discarded by the big companies, we wonder what there is in it for this country. Recently 30 licences have been given for the extraction of petroleum and national gas. The list of companies supplied by the Under-Secretary of State contains no familiar names, and only one company appears to be a United Kingdom-controlled company.
I see a grave danger in this, and I am seeking in the Amendments to ensure that the resources out of our own ground redound to the benefit of this country


and are not exported in the form of £s to America or wherever it may be. There are several ways of achieving this under the Amendments.

Mr. Thomas Swain: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that from Gainsborough in Lincolnshire to Eakring in Nottinghamshire there is a wide expanse of oilfield being exploited? It would be interesting to hear from the Minister just who is exploiting this oilfield.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I am interested in this because the company concerned in my constituency is foreign-owned. The head of it flew over from Calgary when we had a public meeting in my constituency. I wondered how much of that money, if it was successful, would remain in this country and how much would be remitted to the United States. It seems to defeat the argument for the Bill which is trying to save foreign currency.
Amendment No. 6 would give less aid to these foreign companies. After all, there are plenty of predominantly British companies which could operate to the advantage of the British exchequer. The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) made a good point when he said that these companies had international ramifications. I do not see why it is necessary to encourage small subsidiaries of American companies, which would tend to take away all the profits they could in the event of successful exploitation. Amendment No. 6 would give foreign companies less Government aid than British companies. Amendment No. 7 would refer to remissions overseas if profits were built up by these companies exploiting our resources to make sure that the whole of the 85 per cent. was not immediately transferred to Canada or the United States.
Amendment No. 8 calls for a report on these remissions abroad in the annual report to which the Minister has agreed. If the balance of payments are important we have to look a little further than giving grants to those people and hoping that they will leave a lot of this money here.

Sir J. Eden: The business of mineral exploration and the development of mineral resources is international; it is

not just a question of companies being international, it is the business which is international. Whether they are British companies or foreign companies they will either operate in this country or elsewhere depending upon where the mineral resources are, the extent of the resources, the extent of the encouragement given to them and the nature and proximity of the market for the product.
It is the international nature of the business that makes it, in my view, right for us to ensure that the encouragement to exploration here is no less attractive than elsewhere. Amendment No. 6 would restrict the contributions receivable by foreign companies or from British-based subsidiaries to 20 per cent., while under the terms of the Bill British companies would continue to receive up to 35 per cent. of the contribution towards exploration expenditure.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend's proposals. The Amendment would fly in the face of our policy, which has been long practised by this country, of non-discrimination against foreign firms. It is not justified in this case. We have never had discrimination of this nature. For example, there is no discrimination in applying the exploration arrangements for the oil and gas deposits in the North Sea, nor is there in the application of the system of regional grants and incentives. They are available to foreign companies. Any move in the direction of discrimination as proposed in the Amendment would have very wide implications. What is more, it is not only this country that has a tradition of non-discrimination. This will apply in the case of the E.E.C., and one has to watch that aspect, too.
The Amendment would also be directly contradictory to our policies on inward direct investment. In general, we have tended to encourage inward investment in this country for the inflow which such investment brings and for the possibility of new employment provided by foreign-owned companies, many of which are encouraged to go to development areas.
However, in order to encourage inward investment, we must as a counterpart give freedom to remit dividends, profits and the net proceeds of disinvestment overseas. That is why I find equal difficulty in accepting Amendment No. 7, which seeks to limit overseas remittances


by foreign-owned companies which have benefited under the scheme.
It follows from that that Amendment No. 8 is also unacceptable. Moreover, if only a few foreign-based companies were involved, a provision on these lines could well involve disclosure of commercially confidential information. I have given clear undertakings on that point. In Committee, I underlined the fact that information supplied to the Government in association with a company's application for a contribution towards exploration expenditure is given in strict confidence. It would not be right to operate in any other way.
In the course of my hon. Friend's speech, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) referred to certain exploration work which is going on near his constituency. I believe that that is being carried out by B.P. This rather underlines a point that I made earlier. B.P. is also engaged in Alaska. In using the word "foreign", I am not sure whether my hon. Friend intended his Amendment to apply equally to the Canadian companies. I think that he has some experience of Canadian companies in this regard. But I doubt whether it would apply to Canadian companies.
I shall not go into detailed points, but it is important to emphasise the general point that this is an international business. By the very nature of the business, companies should take themselves to all parts of the world where mineral resources are likely to be found and are capable of exploitation. This Bill provides a stimulus to bring these companies here, in order that we may find out the extent of mineral resources in the country.

Mr. Alan Williams: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to preserve confidentiality. However, we are talking about confidentiality in terms of the nature of the operations and the nature of discoveries which result from exploration work. What breach of confidentiality does the Minister envisage arising from the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend who merely wants disclosure of the amounts of funds which are being transmitted abroad?

Sir J. Eden: There is a limited number of companies which come for the purpose of exploration here, and it might be pos-

sible to discern from the amount of information disclosed and published in that form the extent of the resources available. This is one of the possibilities against which we have to guard.

Amendment negatived.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 20, after 'earth', insert
'except oil or natural gas'.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend tell us that at present there is no intention to use this subsidy for oil and natural gas in view of the amount of exploration which is going on. That being so, I am not quite clear why he wishes to include them within the ambit of the Bill, especially as he seems so certain that he will wish to spend the full £25 million. I see that in some ways exploration for oil and natural gas will do less damage to the environment than some of the other metals which might be more valuable to the national economy but which tend to leave large scars.
There is a good deal of misconception about exploration for oil and natural gas. Landowners are under the misapprehension that they will get a lot of money out of it, and local people think that it will bring a lot of employment to the areas concerned; but we know only too well that that does not happen. Therefore, I wonder what object the Minister has in leaving these matters within the ambit of the Bill.
I notice that when the Minister made his original statement in the House on 8th July that the Bill was to be introduced, the formula which he then used did not appear to include petroleum, but rather metals. What has changed his mind? Does he think that it might be wiser, to prevent too much misapprehension, to remove these matters from the Bill altogether?

Mr. Alan Williams: In Committee we raised the question of the discretionary power of the Minister. Indeed, I accept his point that 'it is better that the range of minerals should be discretionary rather than spent out in the Bill, because it can be more difficult to effect necessary changes of policy at a future date.
We asked the Minister to consider a particular question. In the memorandum


which his Department put forward, the hon. Gentleman justified excluding sedimentary minerals from the Bill on the ground that the location of such minerals was already known. I put the point in Committee that that may be an argument which he could put forward and try to defend at the Box in relation to dry land, but that it was not an argument which he could put forward in relation to the Continental Shelf where the location and quantity of such deposits is not known. I asked the hon. Gentleman, if he insisted on excluding sedimentary deposits on dry land, whether he would consider extending the opportunity of the incentives offered in the Bill to sedimentary exploration work which takes place on the Continental Shelf. Has he, as yet, had a chance to look at this point? If so, will he take this opportunity to tell the House what he has decided?

Sir J. Eden: To answer my hon. Friend, the main reason for including hydrocarbons in the definition of mineral deposits is to provide the Government with the necessary powers to extend the proposed scheme to hydrocarbons if at some future date it is decided in the national interest to do so. I admit that it is hard to envisage now the circumstances in which the need for that might arise. But I am thinking primarily of the possibility at some future date of the need arising to cover this in inland exploration. This in part, though not sufficiently, is the answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams), that concerning this aspect of the possible extension of any scheme, one is looking especially at present at the opportunities which may need to be stimulated for landward exploration. As the hon. Member knows, the work on the Continental Shelf is taking place satisfactorily at present, and this has been the subject, in relation to hydrocarbons, of separate legislation. We have not yet completed the assessment of the likely range of minerals which are capable of development either close to or further out from our coastline. This is still under study. I feel unable to say anything precise on this subject until we have carried this study considerably further than is the present state of our knowledge.
Throughout his consideration of the Bill my hon. Friend has been primarily

concerned with the question of land-based exploration for hydrocarbons. In spite of what I have said, he can be reassured certainly for the foreseeable future, because there is every indication of sufficient activity taking place. This seems to be gathering momentum at present. Whether it will continue in that way I just do not know, and I am thinking especially here of gas.
This is something that one needs to have in reserve, and it is a reserve power. It is not in the scheme at present, but should the need ever arise the scheme can be altered to include this within the purview of the Bill.
We have to have in mind the two separate things, the Bill and the scheme. The scheme is limited in the first instance to these particular minerals which I have already identified and for which certainly we wish to see added stimulus being given by the Bill.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I am glad that my hon. Friend has reaffirmed that there is no immediate intention of including oil and natural gas, because I have, as he rightly said, been very concerned about this, although I should have thought that on land it was fairly well known where these deposits are likely to lie and there would not be much point in trying to encourage exploration in areas which are known perfectly well geologically to be very unlikely indeed.
In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT

Sir John Eden: I beg to move Amendment No. 10 in page 2, line 39 leave out 'and Building Grants Amendment' and insert 'Grants'.
In Standing Committee the title of the Bill was amended to make specific reference to investment grants and, as I explained on that occasion, the drafting of the Amendment was defective. The Bill contains minor provisions relating to the ending of investment grants, but it has nothing to do with building grants. This Amendment corrects that defect whilst accepting in principle the decision


taken in Standing Committee. If the Amendment is accepted the short Title of the Bill will be Mineral Exploration and Investment Grants Bill.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am glad the Government have decided to accept their massive defeat in Committee so gracefully this evening. May I reiterate a serious point made in Committee from both sides. This final change in the Title of the Bill has meant adding two words but that has considerably improved the clarity of the Title. Hon. Members feel, I am sure, that the use of words like etcetera in the titles of Bills is to be deplored where a reasonable alternative is available. For that reason, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tidying-up Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forth-with pursuant to Standing Order 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

EDUCATION, MANSFIELD

3.27 a.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I do not know whether I am expected to apologise to the Under-Secretary for dragging him here at this unearthly hour to answer the debate. As a former miner working at night comes as second nature to me. But this is the luck of the draw, and it is no deliberate plan of mine to be here at 3.30 a.m.
The problem of future education in Mansfield arises from the historical fact that Mansfield's selective schools have had to provide education not only for Mansfield's own pupils but also for those from surrounding areas. We are left with the freak situation of having within the borough 4,410 main school places for secondary education and of these more than half—2,250—are selective places. The situation is highlighted by Her Majesty's inspector's report on Brunts

Grammar School, Mansfield, on the areas of intake for the six years 1963 to 1968. Of an intake of 510 pupils, 238 or 46·67 per cent. were from within the Borough of Mansfield and 272 or 53·3 per cent. were from outside.
Since 1964 comprehensive schools have opened in the surrounding areas and the Nottinghamshire local education committee plans to have six comprehensive schools within a six-mile radius of Mansfield by the end of 1973 when it expects that about 7,440 pupils will be receiving a comprehensive education. Added to this list is the comprehensive school in the neighbouring constituency of Bolsover in Derbyshire. So, by the end of 1973, Mansfield Borough will be completely surrounded by areas with a system of comprehensive education. These schools will provide academic places for over 2,000 children who would have had to be catered for in Mansfield's selective schools. Selective places in Mansfield will become surplus to requirements. At present just over 50 per cent. are selective, and the education authority suggest that this has to be adjusted to something like 28 per cent. selective and 72 per cent. non-selective.
In addition there is to be the raising of the school leaving age. Provided that Mansfield fills the spare selective places created in Mansfield itself with the increased numbers of non-selective children it will be able to absorb almost the whole of the increased secondary population arising from the raising of the school leaving age. The spare places almost exactly balance. There are 4,410 main school places. The number required in Mansfield in 1972 will be 4,360, in 1973 it will be 4,631, in 1974 it will be 4,515 and in 1975, 4,450. The Nottinghamshire Education Authority has decided not to allocate any money to Mansfield because of the raising of the school leaving age.
There is an increasing feeling that Mansfield is being left out of things. One increasingly hears such remarks as, "Mansfield is being turned into an educational backwater"; "Educational Standards in Mansfield will suffer"; "The secondary moderns will become educational slums." That is hardly good reading for parents in the Nottinghamshire Evening Post or the Mansfield Chronicle-Advertiser.
The system is already creating educational problems. The latest one is of a family from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whose children used to attend the comprehensive school in Shirebrook, Derbyshire. Mansfield Secondary School has nothing to offer by comparison with its curriculum.
I would advise people moving into the area to try to stay outside the boundary of Mansfield, which does not have one comprehensive school. I understand from the answer to Question No. 85 on 26th February, 1971, that not one pupil from within the borough is receiving comprehensive education. I hope that this debate will start us off towards a fair deal and the end of the saga of Brunts Grammar School and Sherwood Hall Boys and Girls Technical Grammar Schools.
With regard to Brunts, I can do no better than quote the inspector's report of 1969:
The reports of 1936 and 1954 devoted considerable space to describing the inadequacies of the premises. It is more than unfortunate that the report could repeat almost verbatim made on the premises by the two previous ones, though it must be said in all fairness that the Governors have been singularly unlucky in their efforts to improve the situation, when first the 1939 War thwarted them, then a proposal to add some accommodation in 1958 was changed to a suggestion for rebuilding on a new site, and a proposal for secondary reorganisation in 1965 resulted in their withdrawing their building project from the 1966–67 building programme.
In the proposals it was suggested that the building plans be deferred to the 1967–68 building programme, but now, in 1972, Brunts is 10th in order of priority for the 1973–74 programme.
The 1969 report concluded:
The school still appears to be a happy community and maintains the tradition of hard work in the face of deficiencies of premises which have been recorded for at least 33 years. The devotion of the headmaster and staff in overcoming difficulties and the needs of present generations of pupils merit serious attempts to improve, without further delay, the working conditions in this school.
I entirely agree with that. With the Brunts saga and the mess which we are in with regard to the proposed recommendation of the Nottinghamshire County Council with regard the Sherwood Hall Boys and Girls Technical Grammar

Schools going bilateral, there is little wonder that the people of Mansfield are becoming angry with the county council on its attitude towards Mansfield education.
Yesterday, 18th January, 1972, according to the Answer to Question No. 44 on 16th December, 1971, is the final day for statutory objections to this proposal. Consultation between the county council and parents, pupils and staff have left a lot to be desired. The council's proposals have been condemned by parents, pupils, headmaster, staff, governors, West Notts Divisional Executive, Mansfield Borough Council, Mansfield's M.P. and were, I understand, the way out of our difficulties least recommended by the then Director of Education. I assure the Minister that when, at Mansfield Town Council, Councillor Max Banks moves a proposal and Councillor Mrs. Caley seconds it, history is being made in Mansfield. The proposed scheme is certainly being opposed and the oft heard remark about the scheme is that it is "neither nowt nor summat."
I feel sorry for and have already forgiven the only county councillor in the area who found himself having to vote for the scheme, proving, of course, that there was quite a three-line whip in evidence on that occasion at County Hall. It also proved what I always suspected, namely, that when the county council wants to be political, it can show its fangs.
But the final decision rests with the Secretary of State and in the letter from the Department dated 23rd December the right hon. Lady promised to consider all the circumstances and said that the views of my constituents would be taken into consideration.
It is not often that an hon. Member can say that he has the full backing of his constituents, but on this issue, as the correspondence shows, the Minister will be aware that I can make this claim. I hope that the Secretary of State will meet a deputation of parents and staff, who have formed themselves into a committee following numerous well attended meetings, so tht they can put their views forward about what they are calling a sordid situation.
For historic reasons, Mansfield has been left with a freak situation from the


education point of view. We are going to need a great deal of help from the Government in general and the Department in particular to overcome this situation. I am tonight asking for the Department's inspectors to come to Mansfield and make a report on the position, for we are talking about the best investment that we in my constituency can make, and that lies in the education of our children. We are most certainly not satisfied with the progress that is being made.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I shall attempt to deal with, if not fully to answer, the various points raised by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon).
I make no complaint whatever about the lateness of the hour at which this debate is taking place, which is neither his fault nor mine, though it proves that mining is not the only occupation in which one is trained to work at night. It is clear that when necessary both of us can be moles.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not go into any detail on the merits of the matters he raised in relation to the Sherwood Hall Boys and Girls Technical Grammar Schools. No discourtesy is intended, and the hon. Gentleman will understand that, as it happened, yesterday—and it is "yesterday" in Parliamentary terms—was the expiry date for objections to be made to my right hon. Friend in relation to Section 13 notices.
Unless that procedure is to be a farce, any Secretary of State of any party must retain a certain judical independence while the Section 13 process is continuing. Once the date is passed, as it now is, the local education authority, in this case Nottinghamshire, has the right, which is given to all, to comment on the objections, and doubtless that will now take place. However, it would be improper for me to comment in any way, one way or the other, on the merits of those proposals.
I am well aware that on the publication of the statutory notices objections have been made. I understand that the effect of the notices is, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, to make a significant change in the character of these two schools and

convert them into bilateral schools, in each of which half of the entry would be by selection at eleven plus and the remainder of the entry would be from the locality of the school without selection. I understand that a number of local people have submitted objections to the Department. It is right and proper that they should wish to do so and I note the hon. Gentleman's comment that he would like to associate himself with the request for a deputation to be received.
I hope I am accurate in saying that the hon. Gentleman has been in touch with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State on this matter and my noble Friend has explained—and I think he is right on this—that he would prefer to wait until the period for objections has expired and until he has had the opportunity of studying the county's comments on the points raised by the objectors before making a decision. My noble Friend must, like myself, be very careful not to destroy or impair the objectivity of the approach which the Secretary of State will make to this matter.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the objections lodged under the statutory procedures will be most carefully examined, as will the comments of the local education authority. This is the very reason for having the procedures. Otherwise, why have them? It is proper that local people who are much affected should have the opportunity of expressing a view upon a matter which is obviously very important to them.
I thought, too, because I realise that this has been a matter of dispute, debate and discussion for many years, that the hon. Gentleman might raise the question of Brunts Grammar School. No words that I use are meant to import any complacency into the state of the school. Given greatly increased resources, there are schools all over the country—we can all think of them—that we would like to get our hands on, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, as with all forms of government, this is a matter of priorities.
For better or for worse—from my point of view I am clear that it is for the better—my right hon. Friend, after she has, as any Secretary of State must, provided for "roofs over heads" as we call them in shorthand, is devoting the first


priority of her resources to the replacement of old primary schools. I can perhaps put it in this way, that the cost of the replacement of Brunts Grammar School is roughly equivalent to the replacement of four or five primary schools. That is the equation that we have to take on board.
The national background against which my right hon. Friend has to take her decision is that about one in five of our primary school children are in nineteenth century schools, compared with about one in twenty in secondary schools. That is the justification—I realise that this is controversial—for the concentration, at least at present, upon the replacement of old primary schools. But I do not go on from there—and certainly my right hon. Friend does not—to suggest that there is not a great task still to be done in the secondary schools, but, given the need to have a system of priorities, I assert that this is the right order of priorities, and the county of which the hon. Gentleman represents part has benefited from this policy.
My observation at Question Time was that the policy had been widely supported in the hon. Gentleman's county. In the four years from 1970–71 to 1973–74, Nottinghamshire has had allocations for the purpose I have been talking about of £150,000, £280,000, £219,000, and now £400,000. The last of those, as the hon. Gentleman knows, includes the replacement of St. Peter's Church of England primary school in Mansfield at a cost of £84,000. I have to set this against the national background, while not importing for one moment any sense of complacency.
I thought it might also be of assistance to tell the House, because I have been able to make inquiries at rather short notice on this point—about monies for R.S.L.A. purposes in Mansfield. The hon. Gentleman used a phrase about how he wished that Her Majesty's inspector, might come down to Mansfield, but throughout the country one of the advantages of the inspectorial system and

one of the great strengths of the British educational system is that they do not have to "come down" but are around constantly, and while they might not make a visitation at regular intervals they are very much in touch. I am informed that in all the secondary schools in Nottinghamshire, where no major capital work is being done for raising the school leaving age, the authority is proposing to make some provision so that it will be seen that every school will have been helped. I have been provided, through the assistance of the Inspectorate, with a list of those schools. In one of them the headmaster is not yet aware of the firm nature of the project, but soon will be. I have been able to look around them all, on paper, and I think it makes an impressive story.
The object is to do precisely as the hon. Gentleman says, to have something on the ground, maybe not always sufficient, to mark this important matter of raising the school leaving age. I hope he and I are in full agreement, that it is an important step forward and one which I hope neither of us will be put off by criticisms from any quarter.
My time is virtually up and, if I may just draw the threads together, for reasons the hon. Gentleman has understood, and which I hope will be understood locally, I do not feel able to comment at all on the matter of the Section 13 notices at present in front of us. I have attempted to place the Brunts School replacement in a national background. I realise that answer is not encouraging immediately, but most educationalists would feel that priority dictates it as the right one. I will, of course, convey to my noble Friend the point about a deputation, but I have expressed the problem of timing which I think the hon. Gentleman accepts and I have mentioned the allocation of monies to the R.S.L.A. projects to show the determined attempt by the authority to make preparation for this very important event in our educational history.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Four o'clock a.m.